Technology Acceptance and User-Centred Design of Assistive Exoskeletons for Older Adults: A Commentary
- Robust control
- Safety and dependability
- Ease of wear ability/portability
2. Technology Acceptance Models
- Theory of reasoned action 
- Theory of planned behaviour 
- Technology acceptance model 
- Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 
- The Almere model 
- Senior technology acceptance model 
2.1. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
2.2. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
2.3. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
2.4. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
- Performance expectancy—e.g., I would find the system useful in my job.
- Effort expectancy—e.g., It would be easy for me to become skilful at using the system.
- Attitude toward using technology—i.e., using the system is a bad/good idea.
- Social influence—e.g., People who influence my behaviour think that I should use the system.
- Facilitating conditions—e.g., I have the resources necessary to use the system.
- Self-efficacy—e.g., I could complete a job or task using the system…if I could call someone if I got stuck.
- Anxiety—e.g., It scares me to think that I could lose a lot of information using the system by hitting a wrong key.
- Behavioural intention to use the system—e.g., I intend to use the system in the next number of months.
2.5. Almere TAM
- Anxiety—anxious or emotional reactions when using the system
- Attitude—positive or negative feelings about the application of the technology
- Facilitating conditions—objective factors in the environment that facilitate using the system
- Intention to use—The outspoken intention to use the system over a longer period of time
- Perceived adaptability—the perceived ability of the system to be adaptive to the changing needs of the user
- Perceived enjoyment—feelings of joy or pleasure by the user associated with the use of the system
- Perceived ease of use—the degree to which the user believes that using the system would be free of effort
- Perceived sociability—the perceived ability of the system to inform sociable behaviour
- Perceived usefulness—the degree to which a person believes that using the system would enhance his or her daily activities
- Social influence—the user’s perception of how people who are important to them think about him/her using the system
- Social presence—the experience of sensing a social entity when interacting with the system
- Trust—the belief that the system performs with integrity and reliability
- Use—the actual use of the system over a longer period of time
2.6. Senior Technology Acceptance Model (STAM)
3.1. TAMs and Assistive Technology Models
3.2. User-Centred Design of Assistive Exoskeletons
3.3. Practical Approaches to User-Centred Design of Exoskeletons
Conflicts of Interest
- Active and Assisted Living Joint Programme (AAL). Demographic Change Ageing Begins at Birth. 2016. Available online: http://www.aal-europe.eu/about/demographic-change/ (accessed on 22 August 2017).
- WHO. World Report on Disability. 2011. Available online: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2017).
- Bedaf, S.; Huijnen, C.; van den Heuvel, R.; de Witte, L. Robots supporting care for elderly people. In Robotic Assistive Technologies; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; Chapter 9; pp. 309–332. [Google Scholar]
- Borisoff, J.; Khalili, M.; Ben Mortenson, W.; Van der Loos, H.F.M. Exoskeletons as an assistive technology for mobility and manipulation. In Robotic Assistive Technologies; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; Chapter 6; pp. 179–218. [Google Scholar]
- Lauer, E.A.; Houtenville, A.J. Annual Disability Statistics Compendium: 2016. Available online: https://disabilitycompendium.org/sites/default/files/user-uploads/2016%20Annual%20Disability%20Statistics%20Compendium.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2017).
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions European Disability Strategy 2010–2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-free Europe. 2010. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:52010DC0636 (accessed on 10 December 2017).
- Manini, T.M. Mobility decline in old age: A time to intervene. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530168/ (accessed on 31 October 2017).
- Research and Markets. Wearable Robots, Exoskeleton: Market Shares, Strategies, and Forecasts, Worldwide, 2016–2021. Available online: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/3700034/wearablerobots-exoskeleton-market-shares (accessed on 25 August 2017).
- Young, A.; Ferris, D. State-of-the-art and future directions for lower limb robotic exoskeletons. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabilit. Eng. 2016, 25, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smarr, C.A.; Mitzner, T.L.; Beer, J.M.; Prakash, A.; Chen, T.L.; Kemp, C.C.; Rogers, W.A. Domestic robots for older adults: Attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2013, 6, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bemelmans, R.; Gelderblom, G.J.; Jonker, P.; de Witte, L. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2012, 13, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, Y.H.; Damnée, S.; Kerhervé, H.; Ware, C.; Rigaud, A.S. Bridging the digital divide in older adults: A study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies. Clin. Interv. Aging 2015, 10, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nathan, S. Power Dressing: Why It’s Exoskeleton Time. The Engineer. Available online: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/december-digi-issue/power-dressing-why-its-exoskeleton-time/ (accessed on 23 August 2017).
- Van der loos, H.F.M.; Reinkensmeyer, D.J.; Guglielmelli, E. Rehabilitation and health care robotics. In Handbook of Robotics; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008; p. 53. [Google Scholar]
- Katz, S. Assessing self-maintenance: Activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1983, 31, 721–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pigliautile, M.; Tiberio, L.; Mecocci, P.; Federici, S. The Geriatrician. In Assistive Technology Assessment Handbook; (Rehabilitation Science in Practice Series); CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012; Chapter 13; pp. 269–299. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.H.; Wrobel, J.; Cornuet, M.; Kerhervé, H.; Damnée, S.; Rigaud, A.S. Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: A mixed-method study of human-robot interaction over a month period in the Living Lab setting. Clin. Interv. Aging 2014, 9, 801–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cook, A.; Polgar, J. Assistive Technologies: Principles & Practices; Elsevier/Mosby: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Pazzaglia, M.; Molinari, M. The embodiment of assistive devices—From wheelchair to exoskeleton. Phys. Life Rev. 2016, 16, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Broadbent, E.; Stafford, R.; MacDonald, B. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, D.; Holloway, C.S.; Morgado Ramirez, D.Z.; Smitham, P.; Pappas, Y. What are user perspectives of exoskeleton technology? A literature review. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2017, 33, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wolff, J.; Parker, C.; Borisoff, J.; Mortenson, W.B.; Mattie, J. A survey of stakeholder perspectives on exoskeleton technology. J. Neuroeng. Rehabilit. 2014, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Charness, N.; Jastrzembski, T.S. Gerontechnology. In Future Interaction Design II; Saariluoma, P., Isomaki, H., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: London, UK, 2009; pp. 1–29. ISBN 978-1-84800-300-2. [Google Scholar]
- Harrington, T.L.; Harrington, M.K. Gerontechnology Why and How; Herman Bouma Foundation of Gerontechnology: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Randolph, A.B.; Hubona, G.S. Organizational and individual acceptance of assistive interfaces and technologies. In Human-computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Applications; M.E. Sharpe, Inc.: Armonk, NY, USA; London, UK, 2006; Volume 6, pp. 379–400. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 13482: Robots and robotic devices—Safety Requirements for Personal Care Robots. 2014. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/53820.html (accessed on 14 November 2017).
- World Health Organisation. ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Draft Practice Manual. Available online: http://www.who.int/classifications/drafticfpracticalmanual2.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 30 October 2017).
- Federici, F.; Scherer, M.J. (Eds.) Assistive Technology Assessment Handbook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heerink, M.; Kröse, B.; Evers, V.; Wielinga, B. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2010, 2, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, K.; Chan, A.H.S. Gerontechnology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: A senior technology acceptance model (STAM). Ergonomics 2014, 57, 635–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, USA, 20 December 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenker, J.A.; Paquet, V.L. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist. Technol. 2003, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Newell, A.F. Design and the Digital Divide—Insights from 40 Years in Computer Support for Older and Disabled People; Morgan & Claypool: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Fisk, A.D.; Rogers, W.A.; Charness, N.; Czaja, S.J.; Sharit, J. Design for Older Adults—Principles and Creative Human Factor Approaches; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Norman, D.A. The Design of Future Things; BasicBooks: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Farage, M.A.; Miller, K.W.; Ajayi, F.; Hutchins, D. Design principles to accommodate older adults. Glob. J. Health Sci. 2012, 4, 2–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rubin, J.; Chisnell, D. How to plan, design and conduct effective tests. In Handbook of Usability Testing, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- De Looze, M.; Bosch, T.; Krause, F.; Stadler, K.; O’Sullivan, L.W. Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics 2016, 59, 671–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blomberg, J.; Giacomi, J.; Mosher, A.; Swenton-Wall, P. Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In Participatory Design: Principles and Practices; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993; pp. 123–155. [Google Scholar]
- Pirkl, J.J. Transgenerational Design—Products for an Ageing Population; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Shah, S.G.S.; Robinson, I.; Al Shawi, S. Developing medical device technologies from users’ perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2009, 25, 514–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- O’Sullivan, L.; Power, V.; de Eyto, A.; Bauer, C.; Nikamp, C.; Schülein, S.; Müller, J.; Ortiz, J. Exploring User Requirements for a Lower Body Soft Exoskeleton to Assist Mobility. In Wearable Exoskeleton Systems: Design, Control and Applications; Bai, S., Virk, G., Sugar, T., Eds.; IET: Stevenage, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
|Unified Theory of Acceptance of Technology (UTAT)||Almere Model||Senior Technology Acceptance Model (STAM)|
|Evaluated older adult perceptions and user of technology||✘||✔||✔|
|Affords adaptability of technologies and future thinking||✘||✔||✘|
|Specific to robots/social agents||✘||✔||✘|
|Tested with users in social environments||✘||✔||✔|
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Shore, L.; Power, V.; De Eyto, A.; O’Sullivan, L.W. Technology Acceptance and User-Centred Design of Assistive Exoskeletons for Older Adults: A Commentary. Robotics 2018, 7, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics7010003
Shore L, Power V, De Eyto A, O’Sullivan LW. Technology Acceptance and User-Centred Design of Assistive Exoskeletons for Older Adults: A Commentary. Robotics. 2018; 7(1):3. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics7010003Chicago/Turabian Style
Shore, Linda, Valerie Power, Adam De Eyto, and Leonard W. O’Sullivan. 2018. "Technology Acceptance and User-Centred Design of Assistive Exoskeletons for Older Adults: A Commentary" Robotics 7, no. 1: 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics7010003