Advertisement

Evaluation of Wearable Device for the Elderly (W-Emas)

  • Aw Kien SinEmail author
  • Halimah Badioze Zaman
  • Azlina Ahmad
  • Riza Sulaiman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9429)

Abstract

The use of wearable technology is one of the current approach to help and support the elderly in sustaining their daily lifestyle. The elderly face various constraints in handling and using new technology like the wearable technology. In this study, we provide an alternative approach to user interface based on the Tangible User Interface (TUI), instead of the Graphical User Interface (GUI). We built a wearable prototype in the form of a watch device which allows the elderly to control electrical and electronic appliances such the lights, lamp, fan and computer in their room; as well as their telephone for emergency calls. The wearable device was developed using the prototyping approach and evaluation was conducted through a usability testing based on four constructs: ease of use, effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction. Analysis was carried out based on the triangulation approach. The ease of use construct was measured using the standard System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire. The effectiveness construct was measured based on the time taken for task completion. The efficiency construct was measured based on the error rate and task completion rate. Both these tasks were conducted using the observational approach. For user satisfaction construct the interview approach was conducted.

Keywords

Tangible user interface (TUI) Interaction Wearable technology Device for elderly 

References

  1. 1.
    United Nation. Vienna. The World Population Ageing: 1950–2050. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldageing19502050/
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    National Statistics Department’s. population projection Malaysia 2010–2040. http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Population/files/population_projections/Population_Projection_2010-2040.pdf
  4. 4.
    United Nation. Vienna. International Plan of Action on Aging. http://www.un.org/es/globalissues/ageing/docs/vipaa.pdf
  5. 5.
    Andreoni, G., Costa, F., Attanasio, A., Baroni, G., Muschiato, S., Nonini, P., Pagni, A., Biraghi, R., Pozzi, R., Romero, M., Perego, P.: Design and ergonomics of monitoring system for elderly. In: Duffy, V.G. (ed.) DHM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8529, pp. 499–507. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, M., Lim, J., Tewolde, G., Kwon, J.: Affordable remote health monitoring system for the elderly using smart mobile device. Sens. Transducers 184(1), 1726–5479 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stone, E.E., Skubic, M.: Fall detection in homes of older adults using the microsoft kinect. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 19(1), 290–301 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miskelly, F.G.: Assitive technology in elderly care. Br. Geriatr. Soc. Age Ageing 2001(30), 455–458 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lê, Q., Nguyen, H.B., Barnett, T.: Smart homes for older people: positive aging in a digital world. Future Internet 4(2), 607–617 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Starner, T., Auxier, J., Ashbrook, D., Gandy, M.: The gesture pendant: a self-illuminating, wearable, infrared computer vision system for home automation control and medical monitoring. In: Wearable Computers, the Fourth International Symposium, pp. 87–94 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharkey, A., Sharkey, N.: Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf. Technol. 14(1), 27–40 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sabelli, A.M., Kanda, T., Hagita, N.: A conversational robot in an elderly care center: an ethnographic study. In: 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 37–44. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharkey, A.: Robots and human dignity: a consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics Inf. Technol. 16(1), 63–75 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pineau, J., Montemerlo, M., Pollack, M., Roy, N., Thrun, S.: Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: challenges and results. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42(3/4), 271–281 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pollack, M.E., Brown, L., Colbry, D., Orosz, C., Peintner, B., Ramakrishnan, S., Engberg, S., Matthews, J.T., Dunbar-Jacob, J., McCarthy, C.E.: Pearl: a Mobile Robotic Assistant for the Elderly. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graf, B., Hans, M., Schraft, R.D.: Care-O-bot II—development of a next generation robotic home assistant. Auton. Robots 16(2), 193–205 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bahadori, S., Cesta, A., Grisetti, G., Iocchi, L., Leone, R., Nardi, D., Oddi, A., Pecora, F., Rasconi, R.: Robocare: An Integrated Robotic System for the Domestic Care of the Elderly. Wiley, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Broekens, J., Heerink, M., Rosendal, H.: Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2), 94–103 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heller, R., Jorge, J., Guedj, R. Providing for the Elderly Event Report, EC/NSF Workshop on Universal Accessibility of Ubiquitous Computing 2001. Alcacer do Sal, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Czaja, S.J., Lee, C.: The impact of aging on access to technology. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 5(4), 341–349 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Czaja, S.J.: Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging. CREATE, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Charness, N.: Aging and information technology use. Current Directions in Psychological Science (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Report: Older People, technology and community – the potential of technology to help older people renew or develop social contacts and to actively engage in their communities. http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/wp/ps/Report.pdf (2010)
  24. 24.
    Sauro, J.: A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks & Best Practices. Measuring Usability LLC, USA, p. 33 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5619, pp. 94–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sauro, J.: 10 Things To Know About The System Usability Scale (Sus). http://www.measuringu.com/blog/10-things-SUS.php
  28. 28.
    Sauro, J., Lewis, J.R.: Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research, p. 31. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aw Kien Sin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Halimah Badioze Zaman
    • 1
  • Azlina Ahmad
    • 1
  • Riza Sulaiman
    • 1
  1. 1.Insitute of Visual InformaticsUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaBangiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations