Evaluating Telepresence Robots in the Field

  • Amedeo Cesta
  • Gabriella Cortellessa
  • Andrea Orlandini
  • Lorenza Tiberio
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 358)


Most robotic systems are usually used and evaluated in laboratory setting for a limited period of time. The limitation of lab evaluation is that it does not take into account the different challenges imposed by the fielding of robotic solutions into real contexts. Our current work evaluates a robotic telepresence platform to be used with elderly people. This paper describes our effort toward a comprehensive, ecological and longitudinal evaluation of such robots. Specifically, the paper highlights open points related to the transition from laboratory to real world settings. It first discusses some results from a short term evaluation performed in Italy, obtained by interviewing 44 healthcare workers as possible clients (people connecting to the robot) and 10 older adults as possible end users (people receiving visits through the robot). It then describes a complete evaluation plan designed for a long term assessment also dwelling on the initial application of such methodology to test sites, finally it introduces some technical features that could enable a more robust real world deployment.


Test Site Family Caregiver Real Context Ambient Assist Live Docking Station 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Tapus, A., Matarić, M.J., Scassellati, B.: The Grand Challenges in Socially Assistive Robotics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 14, 35–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pineau, J., Montemerlo, M., Pollack, M., Roy, N., Thrun, S.: Towards Robotic Assistants in Nursing Homes: Challenges and Results. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 271–281 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Rasconi, R., Pecora, F., Scopelliti, M., Tiberio, L.: Monitoring elderly people with the RoboCare Domestic Environment: Interaction synthesis and user evaluation. Computational Intelligence 27, 60–82 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saffiotti, A.: The Concept of Peis-Ecology: Integrating Robots in Smart Environments. Acta Futura 3, 35–42 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, M.K., Takayama, L.: 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 2011, pp. 33–42. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsui, K.M., Desai, M., Yanco, H.A., Uhlik, C.: Exploring Use Cases for Telepresence Robots. In: Proceedings of the 6th Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2011, pp. 11–18. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beer, J.B., Takayama, L.: Mobile Remote Presence for Older Adults: Acceptance, Benefits, and Concerns. In: Proceedings of Human Robot Interaction, HRI 2011, Lausanne, CH, pp. 19–26 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kristoffersson, A., Coradeschi, S., Loutfi, A., Severinson Eklundh, K.: 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, pp. 43–49 (March 2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tiberio, L., Padua, L., Pellegrino, A., Aprile, I., Cortellessa, G., Cesta, A.: 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, pp. 23–28 (March 2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sabanovic, S., Michalowski, M., Simmons, R.: 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 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hutchins, E.: Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bickmore, T.W., Picard, R.W.: Establishing and Maintaining Long-Term Human-Computer Relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction 12, 293–327 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Orlandini, A., Tiberio, L.: Addressing the Long-term Evaluation of a Telepresence Robot for the Elderly. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, ICAART 2012. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 652–663. SciTePress (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sumi: Software Usability Measurement Inventory, University College Cork (2011), (last checked November 2011)
  15. 15.
    Lombard, M., Ditton, T., Weinstein, L.: Measuring Telepresence: The Temple Presence Inventory. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Workshop on Presence, Los Angeles, California (USA), San Francisco (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Terracciano, A., McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T.: 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, 131–141 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russell, D., Peplau, L.A., Cutrona, C.E.: The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 472–480 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware, J.E.J., Kosinski, M., Keller, S.D.: A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of Scales and Preliminary Tests of Reliability and Validity. Medical Care 34 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zimet, G.D., Dahlem, N.W., Zimet, S.G., Farley, G.K.: The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment 52, 30–41 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yesavage, J.A., Brink, T.L., Rose, T.L., Lum, O., Huang, V., Adey, M., Leirer, V.O.: Development and Validation of a Geriatric Depression Screening Scale: a Preliminary Report. Journal of Psychiatric Research 17, 37–49 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heerink, M., Kröse, B.J.A., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.J.: Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model. I. J. Social Robotics 2, 361–375 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cortellessa, G., Scopelliti, M., Tiberio, L., Koch Svedberg, G., Loutfi, A., Pecora, F.: A Cross-Cultural Evaluation of Domestic Assistive Robots. In: Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on AI in Eldercare: New Solutions to Old Problems (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steinfeld, A., Lewis, M., Fong, T., Scholtz, J.: Common Metrics for Human-Robot Interaction. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 33–40. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsai, T.C., Hsu, Y.L., Ma, A.I., King, T., Wu, C.H.: Developing a Telepresence Robot for Interpersonal Communication with the Elderly in a Home Environment. Telemedicine and e-Health 13, 407–424 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bensalem, S., de Silva, L., Gallien, M., Ingrand, F., Yan, R.: “Rock Solid” Software: A Verifiable and Correct-by-Construction Controller for Rover and Spacecraft Functional Levels. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Symp. on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space, i-SAIRAS 2010 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amedeo Cesta
    • 1
  • Gabriella Cortellessa
    • 1
  • Andrea Orlandini
    • 1
  • Lorenza Tiberio
    • 1
  1. 1.CNR, Italian National Research Council, ISTCRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations