Amedeo Cesta, Gabriella Cortellessa, Andrea Orlandini, Lorenza Tiberio


This paper presents aspects of an ongoing work for a long-term evaluation of a telepresence robot named GIRAFF, as a tool for facilitating interaction and support delivery to older people living at home. Most robotic systems are usually used for short periods of time and in laboratory settings, while this paper describes the challenges, both technological and related to the user evaluation that human-robot interaction should addressed in view of a real use of the technology for a long time span outside the laboratory. The work describes our experience in developing testing sites and in designing an evaluation plan to assess the potential of the GIRAFF platform for telepresence. We highlight open points related to the transition from a limited use in time (short term) to a significant period of time (long term). From a human-robot interaction perspective, we first introduce some results from the short term evaluation, obtained by interviewing 26 nurses as possible clients (people connecting to the robot) and 10 older adults as possible end users (people receiving visits through the robot). The paper describes then a complete evaluation plan designed for the long term assessment. From a technological point of view a set of mandatory “intelligent features” are taken into account that could enable a better real world deployment by inheriting capabilities form state-of-the-art autonomous intelligent robots.


  1. Anybots (2011). Anybots - Your Personal Avatar. http: // Last checked: March, 2011.
  2. Beer, J. B. and Takayama, L. (2011). Mobile remote presence for older adults: Acceptance, benefits, and concerns. In Proceedings of Human Robot Interaction: HRI 2011, pages 19-26, Lausanne, CH.
  3. Bensalem, S., de Silva, L., Gallien, M., Ingrand, F., and Yan, R. (2010). “Rock Solid” Software: A Verifiable and Correct-by-Construction Controller for Rover and Spacecraft Functional Levels. In i-SAIRAS10. Proc. of the 10th Int. Symp. on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space.
  4. Bickmore, T. W. and Picard, R. W. (2005). Establishing and Maintaining Long-Term Human-Computer Relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 12:293-327.
  5. Cesta, A., Coradeschi, S., Cortellessa, G., Gonzalez, J., Tiberio, L., and Von Rump, S. (2010). Enabling Social Interaction Through Embodiment in ExCITE. In ForItAAL. Second Italian Forum on Ambient Assisted Living, Trento, Italy, October 5-7.
  6. Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Giuliani, M., Pecora, F., Scopelliti, M., and Tiberio, L. (2007). Psychological implications of domestic assistive technology for the elderly. PsychNology Journal, 5(3):229-252.
  7. Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Rasconi, R., Pecora, F., Scopelliti, M., and Tiberio, L. (2011). Monitoring elderly people with the ROBOCARE Domestic Environment: Interaction synthesis and user evaluation. Computational Intelligence, 27(1):60-82.
  8. Cortellessa, G., Scopelliti, M., Tiberio, L., Koch Svedberg, G., Loutfi, A., and Pecora, F. (2008). A Cross-Cultural Evaluation of Domestic Assistive Robots. In Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on AI in Eldercare: New Solutions to Old Problems.
  9. Demiris, G., Rantz, M., Aud, M., Marek, K., Tyrer, H., Skubic, M., and Hussam, A. (2004). Older adults attitudes towards and perceptions of smart home technologies: a pilot study. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 29(2):87-94.
  10. Heerink, M., Kröse, B. J. A., Evers, V., and Wielinga, B. J. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. I. J. Social Robotics, 2(4):361-375.
  11. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: the subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2):262-271.
  12. Helal, A. and Abdulrazak, B. (2006). TeCaRob: Tele-Care using Telepresence and Robotic Technology for Assisting People with Special Needs. International Journal of Assistive Robotics and Mechatronics, 7(3):46- 53.
  13. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.
  14. Ijsselsteijn, W. A., de Ridder, H., Freeman, J., and Avons, S. (2000). Presence: Concept, determinants and measurement. In Proceedings of SPIE.
  15. InTouch (2011). InTouch Health Comprehensive Solutions. Last checked: October, 2011.
  16. Kanda, T., Miyashita, T., Osada, T., Haikawa, Y., and Ishiguro, H. (2005). Analysis of humanoid appearances in human-robot interaction. In IROS 2005. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.
  17. Khatib, O. (1986). Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. Int. J. Rob. Res., 5:90-98.
  18. Kristoffersson, A., Coradeschi, S., Loutfi, A., and Severinson Eklundh, K. (2011). Towards Evaluation of Social Robotic Telepresence based on Measures of Social and Spatial Presence. In Proceedings on HRI 2011 Workshop on Social Robotic Telepresence, Lausanne, March, pages 43-49.
  19. Lee, M. K. and Takayama, L. (2011). Now, I Have a Body: Uses and Social Norms for Mobile Remote Presence in the Workplace. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'11, pages 33-42, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  20. Lombard, M., Ditton, T., and Weinstein, L. (2009). Measuring telepresence: The temple presence inventory. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Workshop on Presence, Los Angeles, California (USA)., San Francisco.
  21. Pineau, J., Montemerlo, M., Pollack, M., Roy, N., and Thrun, S. (2003). Towards Robotic Assistants in Nursing Homes: Challenges and Results. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3-4):271-281.
  22. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., and Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised ucla loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39:472-480.
  23. Sabanovic, S., Michalowski, M., and Simmons, R. (2006). Robots in the wild: Observing human-robot social interaction outside the lab. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, Istanbul, Turkey. ACM.
  24. Saffiotti, A. (2009). The Concept of Peis-Ecology: Integrating Robots in Smart Environments. Acta Futura, 3:35-42.
  25. Schloerb, D. (1995). A quantitative measure of telepresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 4:64-80.
  26. Sharit, J., Czaja, S. J., Perdomo, D., and Lee, C. C. (2004). A cost-benefit analysis methodology for assessing product adoption by older user populations. Applied Ergonomics, 35(2):81 - 92.
  27. Smith, R., Self, M., and Cheeseman, P. (1990). Estimating uncertain spatial relationships in robotics, pages 167- 193. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA.
  28. Sumi (2011). Software Usability Measurement Inventory, University College Cork. Last checked: November 2011.
  29. Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T. (2003). Factorial and construct validity of the italian positive and negative affect schedule (panas). European journal of psychological assessment official organ of the European Association of Psychological Assessment, 19(2):131-141.
  30. Thacker, P. (2005). Physician-robot makes the rounds. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 293(2):150.
  31. Tiberio, L., Padua, L., Pellegrino, A., Aprile, I., Cortellessa, G., and Cesta, A. (2011). Assessing the tolerance of a telepresence robot in users with Mild Cognitive Impairment - A protocol for studying users' physiological response. In Proceedings on HRI 2011 Workshop on Social Robotic Telepresence, Lausanne, March, pages 23-28.
  32. Tsai, T. C., Hsu, Y. L., Ma, A. I., King, T., and Wu., C. H. (2007). Developing a telepresence robot for interpersonal communication with the elderly in a home environment. Telemedicine and e-Health, 13(4):407-424.
  33. Tsui, K. M., Desai, M., Yanco, H. A., and Uhlik, C. (2011a). Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction, HRI 7811, pages 11-18, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  34. Tsui, K. M., Norton, A., Brooks, D., Yanco, H. A., and Kontak, D. (2011b). Designing Telepresence Robot Systems for Use by People with Special Needs. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Quality of Life Technologies 2011: Intelligent Systems for Better Living (held in conjunction with RESNA 2011).
  35. VGo (2011). Introducing VGo. From anywhere. Go anywhere. Last checked: March, 2011.
  36. Ware, J. E. J., Kosinski, M., and Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12- item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34(3).
  37. WillowGarage (2011). Texai remote presence system. Last checked: March, 2011.
  38. Yesavage, J. A., Brink, T. L., Rose, T. L., Lum, O., Huang, V., Adey, M., and Leirer, V. O. (1983). Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17(1):37-49.
  39. Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., and Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1):30-41.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Cesta A., Cortellessa G., Orlandini A. and Tiberio L. (2012). ADDRESSING THE LONG-TERM EVALUATION OF A TELEPRESENCE ROBOT FOR THE ELDERLY . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: SSIR, (ICAART 2012) ISBN 978-989-8425-95-9, pages 652-663. DOI: 10.5220/0003884306520663

in Bibtex Style

author={Amedeo Cesta and Gabriella Cortellessa and Andrea Orlandini and Lorenza Tiberio},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: SSIR, (ICAART 2012)},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: SSIR, (ICAART 2012)
SN - 978-989-8425-95-9
AU - Cesta A.
AU - Cortellessa G.
AU - Orlandini A.
AU - Tiberio L.
PY - 2012
SP - 652
EP - 663
DO - 10.5220/0003884306520663