2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2019.103996
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving gesture-based interaction between an assistive bathing robot and older adults via user training on the gestural commands

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A minimum sample size of 25 participants was determined using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test power analysis with an α of 0.05, power of 0.8, and effect size index of 0.61. Our effect size is similar to other long-term HRI studies with older adults [64,65], which had effect sizes of 0.61 and 0.6, respectively.…”
Section: Participantssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…A minimum sample size of 25 participants was determined using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test power analysis with an α of 0.05, power of 0.8, and effect size index of 0.61. Our effect size is similar to other long-term HRI studies with older adults [64,65], which had effect sizes of 0.61 and 0.6, respectively.…”
Section: Participantssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Considerable intra-cohort variability can also be observed in the patient group regarding the action recognition accuracy (standard deviation ∼26%). This reflects the patients' diverse mental or physical condition which, in several cases, hindered their ability to perform the exercises correctly, as shown by various related works as well (Rodomagoulakis et al, 2016;Werner et al, 2020). Moreover, the biometrics of each patient have a large impact on the system's performance, as some users largely fell outside the camera's field of view.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Study Purpose TRL Price Range Company/Link to the Product Domo Safety (a collection of ambient sensors such as motion, door, pressure, and smoke sensors) [22], [23] Monitoring activity (e.g., by detecting motion) and daily behaviour based on the sensor data. [23], [27], [28], [31], [33], [39], [41], [44], [48], [50]- [53] Contact sensor/magnetic contact sensor/reed contact sensor/Dry contact sensor/door sensor [19], [22], [31], [33], [38], [39], [41], [48], [51], [52], [54], [55] Smart lights (light sensor/light switch sensor/lighting control/smart electric switch) [33], [39], [41], [49]- [51], [55], [56] Robots (ICT-Supported Bath Robots/Robot Era/Robot Activity Support system/mobile robot/KSERA robot/socially-assistive humanoid robot) [17], [20], [41], [42], [46], [47], [57] Wearables (wearable device/wearable fitness tracker/wristwatch/self-developed sensor wristband) [23], [24], [32], [34], …”
Section: Sensor/ Devicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…], [32], [51], [64] Humidity sensor [41], [50], [56], [58] RFID and other tages [18], [29], [30], [34], [35] Sleep sensor/sleep monitor/EMFIT QS bed sensor device [23], [34], [35], [44] Smart phone/care-phone [18], [49], [51], [63] Plug sensors/smart plugs [34], [35], [44] Presence sensor [34], [35], [54] Remotely controlled fan and heating control [49], [55], [ [26], [27], [44], [49] each ies, see Figure 6). These studies used various methods for the evaluation of the systems (e.g., speaker recognition rate [61], command recognition rate [20], number of detected falls [27]), users' evaluations and ratings of the system (e.g., usability [55], user satisfaction [55], user acceptance [51], [63], or other impressions of the system, such as safety [41]), or the system's effect on users (e.g., impacts on independence, performance, and satisfaction [66]). Only two studies solely used qualitative data for evaluation...…”
Section: Sensor/ Devicementioning
confidence: 99%