What Effect Does an Animal Robot Called CuDDler Have on the Engagement and Emotional Response of Older People with Dementia? A Pilot Feasibility Study

Abstract

The development of companion animal robots is of growing interest. These robots have recently been marketed to older adults with dementia as a means of encouraging social engagement and reducing behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. This paper outlines the results of a pilot study that sought to assess the feasibility and effect of using a robotic companion animal called CuDDler on engagement and emotional states of five older adults with dementia living in nursing home care. CuDDler is a prototype robot developed in Singapore. Despite their cognitive decline, the study participants raised a number of concerns regarding the feasibility and tolerability of CuDDler. The effectiveness of CuDDler was also limited in these participants, although one participant with visual agnosia benefited greatly from the one-on-one experience. The findings demonstrate the importance of companion robots being developed that are of an appropriate size, weight and shape for older people, including those with dementia, and a realistic animal shape that does not encourage thoughts of it being a toy. Our conclusions indicate the need for further studies on the development and use of companion robots, and investigation of the comparative benefits of social robots both compared to and in association with human interactions.

How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence

“…The initial searches identified 2,931 unique papers. Of these, 344 were selected for full‐text review and 19 studies (reported in 27 papers) met the inclusion criteria (see Figure for reasons for exclusion): 10 qualitative studies (Birks, Bodak, Barlas, Harwood, & Pether, ; Chang & Sabanovic, ; Chang, Sabanovic, & Huber, ; Giusti & Marti, ; Gustafsson, Svanberg, & Müllersdorf, ; Iacono & Marti, ; Jung, van der Leij, & Kelders, ; Moyle et al, ; Niemelä, Määttä, & Ylikauppila, ; Pfadenhauer & Dukat, ), 2 mixed methods (randomised trials with qualitative elements), reported across 8 papers (Mervin et al, ; Moyle, ; Moyle, ; Moyle, ; Moyle, ; Moyle, ; Robinson, Macdonald, Kerse, & Broadbent, , ) and seven randomised trials reported in nine papers (Banks, Willoughby, & Banks, ; Joranson, Pedersen, Rokstad, & Ihlebaek, , ; Libin & Cohen‐Mansfield, ; Moyle et al, ; Petersen, Houston, Qin, Tague, & Studley, ; Thodberg, Sorensen, Christensen, et al, ; Thodberg, Sørensen, Videbech, et al, ; Valenti Soler et al, ). An update search, carried out in July 2018 across all databases with de‐duping against those already screened, found no additional included papers or studies.…”

“…Most studies involved assessing the effects or perceived impacts or experiences of specific sessions spent with a robopet. These sessions could be facilitated by therapists or researchers (Birks et al, ; Chang et al, ; Giusti & Marti, ; Gustafsson et al, ; Iacono & Marti, ; Moyle et al, ; Robinson, Broadbent, & MacDonald, ) or resident‐led with residents interacting with the robot as they wished. The robots were used in either a group or an individual context, or both.…”

“…All studies were conducted within the past 15 years. Five studies were conducted in the United States (Banks et al, ; Birks et al, ; Chang & Sabanovic, ; Chang et al, ; Petersen et al, ) and four in Australia (Birks et al, ; Moyle et al, , , ), with the remaining studies taking place in Italy (Giusti & Marti, ; Iacono & Marti, ), New Zealand (Robinson, Macdonald, Kerse, & Broadbent, ), Denmark (Thodberg, Sorensen, Christensen, et al, ), Finland (Niemelä et al, ), Germany (Pfadenhauer & Dukat, ), the Netherlands (Jung et al, ), Norway (Joranson, Pedersen, Rokstad, & Ihlebaek, ), Spain (Valenti Soler et al, ) and Sweden (Gustafsson et al, ). The studies involved more than 800 residents (the total number is not clear as two observation studies did not report the number of residents observed) (Chang & Sabanovic, ; Pfadenhauer & Dukat, ).…”

“…Positive behavioural responses were demonstrated through residents touching, petting, stroking, holding and hugging the robopet (Birks et al, ; Iacono & Marti, ; Jung et al, ; Moyle et al, , ). Visual responses (Birks et al, ; Gustafsson et al, ; Moyle et al, ) were often reported in terms of “alertness” and staff involved in a trial perceived that residents appeared to be more alert when they participated in activities with Paro (Moyle et al, ).…”

Living with the animals: animal or robotic companions for the elderly in smart homes?

“…In either case, the connection to a living animal is consciously intended (cf. 7); moreover, the robot is quite often de facto perceived and described as being like an animal or a human being 2 7. This directs attention to the danger that fluffy robotic animals invite an infantilisation of elderly people or else foster a readiness to treat the elderly, especially those with dementia, in a child-like fashion 5 9 13 19.…”