RESUMEN
The purpose of this study was to reveal comprehensible instructions from an assistive robot for older adults, across cognitive levels and characteristics. Participants included 19 older adults with or without cognitive impairment. We administered cognitive tests assessing all major domains (e.g., memory and attention). Participants were required to listen to robot instructions carefully, and perform three activities of daily living (e.g., taking medicine) with three different types of instructions. In instruction pattern 1 (IP1), the robot informed seniors of the task in one sentence, while in instruction patterns 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3), the steps of each activity were split into two and three sentences, respectively. Participants with lower cognitive level showed lower task performance with IP1, whereas almost all participants completed tasks with IP2 and IP3. Cognitive domains such as working memory significantly affected task performances. Participants with lower attention made mistakes in taking their medicine. The results imply that step-by-step instructions should be used for older people with lower levels of cognitive function, especially working memory, and repeated instructions may be required for lower attention. Types of instruction should be selected depending on cognitive characteristics.
Asunto(s)
Disfunción Cognitiva , Robótica , Dispositivos de Autoayuda , Actividades Cotidianas , Anciano , Cognición , Humanos , Dispositivos de Autoayuda/psicologíaRESUMEN
AIM: To improve access to cognitive testing for older adults, the reliability and acceptability of a speech-based cognitive test administered by a social robot were investigated. METHODS: The Japanese version of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status was administered by a social robot to participants recruited from retirement homes and adult daycare facilities. The robot's dialogue and gestures were preprogrammed, while the researcher controlled the timing of proceeding to the next question and scored participants' responses. We examined the internal consistency, alternate form reliability (experiment 1) and test-retest reliability (experiment 2) of the cognitive test. The acceptability of the cognitive test was also examined using a questionnaire in experiment 2. RESULTS: A total of 66 individuals (mean age 81.2 ± 5.8 years) participated in experiment 1; the internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the test was 0.691 and its alternate form reliability (measured by interclass correlation coefficient) was 0.728. A total of 40 of these individuals (mean age 82.0 ± 5.4 years) also participated in experiment 2, and the test-retest reliability was 0.818. According to the questionnaire responses, over half of the participants wanted (or very much wanted) to use the robot version of the test to measure the deterioration of their cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: A robot-administered cognitive test might have satisfactory reliability and acceptability to community-dwelling older adults if those aspects of the test implemented by the researcher can also be successfully automated. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2019; 19: 552-556.