Humanoid robots for assisting people with physical disabilities in activities of daily living: a scoping review

Figures & data

Table 1. Primary search terms.

Concepts	Primary search terms
home context	nursing home*, long term care, homebound*, home* living, independ*, commut*, communit*, district*, municipal* residential*, dwelling, adl, self* assistive
robots	robot*, robotics, care-o-bot, tiago, lio, eve, pr2, molly, max, Charlie, era, agent*, care*, companion*, service*, humanoid*, assists, assistance, assistive, home, hobbit, health, healthcare, support*, domestic, collaborat*, cobot*
activities of daily living/care	daily life activity, daily life living, home care, Home Care Services, self-help device, Activities of Daily Living+*, Independent Living, community living, Self-Care Skills, Daily Activities, Assistive Technology, Assistive Technology Devices, Self Care, Self-Care, Self-Care Skills
experience	experience*, attitude*, perception*, satisfact*, view*, belie*, opinion*, perspectiv*, usefulness*, usabil*, accept*, perception*, need, needs

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

	Inclusion	Exclusion
Population	People of all ages	Healthcare personnel, Caretakers
Concept	A Humanoid robot able to assist physically in ADL activities- as defined by ICF: mobility, self-care, and domestic life	Robots for; Surgery, pain-management, rehabilitation, exoskeletons, cognitive assistance/training, social skill development, managing symptoms, brain functions, monitoring, communication/telepresence. Technical robot features (e.g., navigation), assistive devices, robot-pets
Context	Users’ homes, Home, Care facility, nursing home, simulated home facility	Hospital

Abbreviations: ADL = Activities of daily living, ICF = International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

Figure 1. Flow diagram for study selection.

Table 3. Included papers with aims, population, robot, method, and participants experiences on robot interaction, appearance, functionality, and usability.

Author Country of origin	Aim	Population n=, gender, age	Robot	Method Interaction/video Location	Participants` experiences (1) Interaction (2) Apperance (3) Functionality (4) Ease of Use
(1) Arnold and Scheutz (2018) USA	Explore how a positive or negative attitude from the robot and whether the robot touches an interactant, affects how a robot is judged as a worker and teammate.	332: 135 female, 197 male. Av age 44.	PR2	Quantitative Online Survey with Video.	Rated a robot that initiated touch higher on skill, attentiveness to needs and desires, being a desirable teammate, fairness, and values. Female respondents more positive to a lack of robotic touch.
(2) Bajones et al. (2020) Austria (Greece, Sweeden)	Explore if older adults experience the HOBBIT robot as a suitable means to maintain independent living in their private household.	16: 14 female, 2 male. Older adults: 75-89. Vision, hearing, mobility impairments.	HOBBIT	Mixed method. Questionnaire interview, robot data. Home Interaction.	Keeping you occupied, did not feel safer. Attitude more negative over time, not emotionally attached. Should have round shapes, too large, different tray, too warm, fan-sound too high. Wished for more communication. Did not enhance independence. Easy to use, preferred buttons and touchscreen, forgot meaning of robots gestures.
(3) Bajones et al. (2018) Austria (Greece, Sweeden)	To present HOBBIT, a socially assistive service robot aiming at prolonged independent living of elderly people in their own homes	18: 16 female, 2 male. Older adults: 75-90. Vision, hearing, mobility impairments. Risk of falls	HOBBIT	Mixed method. Questionnaire interview, robot data. Private homes Interaction.	(3) Missing or non-working functionality.
(4) Bakracheva et al. (2020) Bulgaria	To analyze attitudes towards the functions the robots can perform to assist and improve daily life, preferences to robots’ control, appearance, and voice. Preferred activities, preference between and expectations to six versions of ROBCO.	32: 26 female, 5 male. With disabilities 25-80.	ROBCO	Mixed method. Questionnaire with open ended questions. Online survey with video. Club for disabled.	(1) Preffered the robot to be controlled by them (and relatives, other operators).(2) Age, gender differences to design.(3) Enhance independence. Assessment of upper limb not needed.(4) Preffered voice control, and remote control via internet. Mixed response on self-controlling.
(5) Bedaf et al. (2016) Netherlands (UK, France)	To develop the functionalities of Care-O-bot, discuss whether the presence of a service robot could be used to change behavior.	55: 36 female, 19 male. Receiving care, no cognitive decline Older adults: 62-95.	Care-O-bot	Qualitative. Interviews Video Universities.	Do not want the robot to override own decisions (autonomy). (3) Reminders, useful -could be irritating. Mixed on robot suggesting modification of users behavior. Safety, worried about dehydration if the robot refused to get a drink. Privacy, sharing data regarded as necessary. Robot seen as extension of care.
(6) Bedaf et al. (2018) Netherlands	To present how different stakeholders evaluate the role of a robotic assistant at home, what this means for future robot developments.	10: 7 female 3 male. Older adults: 62-93.	Care-O-bot	Mixed method. Questionnaire Interview. Simulated home. Interaction.	Positive experiences of the robot (3) Slow speed. Should do more complex task to contribute to independence. Functionalities are too limited. Wished for fetching and carrying objects, contacting others in case of emergency, opening door, cooking. Not supporting in showering, toileting and getting dressed. Should execute tasks based on users personal preferences. (4) Managed to use the GUI and control the robot by remote control. Struggeled to understand changing colors on the robot.
(7) Beer et al. (2015) USA	To explore the match between user and robot capability, and how this match may change as a function of task.	24: 12 female, 12 male. Half w/mobility issues. Older adults: 65-80.	PR2	Mixed method. Questionnaire Interview/TAL Video.	(3) Useful: Finding objects, dressing (older with mobility loss (wml), transfers, monitoring (wml), medication reminder. Speculations on robots capabilities. Distance-controlled robot could be beneficial.
(8) Beer et al. (2012) USA	Understand older adults’ preferences and perceived advantages/disadvantages of controlling a robot and assess older adults’ willingness to use control methods.	12: 6 female 6 male. Older adults: 68-79.	PR2	Mixed method. Questionnaire Interview Living lab. Interaction.	(3) Suggested robot to not give feedback after completing a task, half suggested visual feedback (e.g. blinking lights). Negative or mixed views on other persons controlling the robot. (4) Preferred voice command, not physical manipulation, somewhat positive to laser pointer.
(9) Beer et al. (2017) USA	To understand older adults’ first impressions (attitudes) of the assistive robot, if preferences and acceptance change between pre and post demonstration.	12: 6 female, 6 male. Older adults: 68-79.	PR2	Mixed method. Questionnaire Interview Living lab Interaction.	(3) Useful: Medication delivery, saves time and effort, too slow. Organizing objects. Preferred human in personal assistance, care, leisure- but robot in chores, information management, manipulating objects. (4) Exposure increased perceived usability and acceptance, more real life than video. Learning to use light switch: mixed responses.
(10) Bevilacqua et al. (2015) Italy	To critcally analyze the methodological choices done and investigate how to implement it in the second experimental loop of the Robot-Era project.	57: No info on gender. W/ health problems, mobility and cognitive deficits. Older adults 65+.	(Oro, Coro) Doro	Mixed method. Questionnaire Observation Living lab/ senior/ retirement home/local clinic. Interaction.	(3) Useful: Reminding service, Italy not Sweeden sample. (4) Services usable or excellent. Some expressed frustration, most enjoyment, and satisfaction. Difficulties with drop down menu.
(11) Bevilacqua et al. (2021) Italy	To explore the psychosocial determinants that lead to acceptability and willingness to interact with a service robot.	35: 22 female, 13 male. Older adults: mean age 73,8.	(Oro, Coro) Doro	Mixed method. Observation. Living lab. Interaction.	(1) Enjoyed using Doro, (one showed anxiety, two negative). (3) Garbage disposals, communication, receive warnings appreciated. Wanted more conversational communication and complex functionality.
(12) Brandl et al. (2016) Germany	To gain a deeper understanding of the distances that humans will accept between themselves and an approaching service robot.	30: 17 female, 13 male. 20-75	Care-O-bot	Mixed method. Distance data, Interview. Interaction.	Approaches increases closeness acceptance, appearing showing front or side does not affect acceptance. Closest acceptance was 0,5 cm in slow speed, participants preferred medium speed.
(13) Cavallo et al. (2014) Italy	To describe the Robot-Era project, which aims to develop, implement and demonstrate the feasibility, scientific/technical effectiveness and social/legal plausibility and acceptability of cooperating robots integrated with smart environments.	35: 22 female, 13 male. No cognitive decline. Older adults: 65-85.	(Oro, Coro) Doro	Mixed method. Data on time spent Questionnaire Interview. Homelab. Interaction.	Trusted the robot, safe. Aestethically pleasing, too big and bulky. Appreciated services, except shopping assistance. Enhance independence. Easy to use.
(14) Cavallo et al. (2018) Italy	To investigate the acceptance of the Robot-Era system, which provides robotic services to permit older people to remain in their homes.	45: No cognitive decline. Older adults: 65-86	(Oro, Coro) Doro	Quantitative. Questionnaire Living lab. Interaction.	Older users with a high education, more willing to interact than volunteers with a low level of education. Not judged dangerous. Feel safer due to warnings. Positive attitudes. Appreciated robot services. Understood functionalities very well. Will enhance independence. Walking assistance rated low as users did not have mobility issues. Shopping rated low.
(15) Chen et al. (2013) USA	To empower motor-impaired users to take full advantage of Assistive mobile manipulators (AMM) to perform a range of tasks, handle real-world variation found in homes and to inform the design of future AMMs.	Case study: 1 male. Disabled.	PR2	Mixed method. Questionnaire Statements. Home Interaction.	(3) Positive to tasks that involve manipulating objects remotely, such as tidying the house, answering the door, or fetching objects.
(16) Deutsch et al. (2019) Israel	Evaluating attitudes and emotional reactions towards different types of home robotic devices.	30: 20 female, 10 male. Healthy. Older adults: 67-90	PR2	Qualitative. Interview. Homes. Video.	Too big. Accepting of both human and object like looks. Positive to cleaning, a robot doing something meaningful, have purpose add to the quality of life. Negative to a robot moving around, a proactive robot, a robot with speech. Concerns about being too complicated
(17) DiNuovo et al. (2014) UK	To develop a more inclusive and usable user interface to facilitate interaction with the robots and to operate the novel service system (SUI/GUI).	82 Older adults.	(Oro, Coro) Doro	Mixed method. Questionnaire Observations. Living lab, Interaction.	Positive the overall experience. (3) Excellent: Shopping, Garbage disposal and communication. (4) Users with low technology experience had some difficulties using the tablet.
(18) DiNuovo et al. (2018) UK	To present the user-centred design approach of a multi-modal user interface (MMUI), which targets a more intuitive human way of interacting with a machine.	82: 51 female, 31 male. Healthy. Older adults 63-97.	(Oro, Coro) Doro	Mixed method. Questionnaire Interview Living lab Office room Interaction.	Positive acceptance by users. (4) Perceived useful, enjoyed a mix of SUI/GUI, scored high on usability for all tasks especially garbage disposal, communication and shopping. Multimodality, added value. Users with low technology experience had some difficulties using the tablet. Showed great tolerance to malfunctions.
(19) Eftring and Frennert (2016) Sweeden	To understand how the seniors used the robot and detect and prevent falls.	49 in lab/18 home, no info on gender or age. Risk of falls.	HOBBIT	Qualitative observations. Living lab Home Interaction.	Missed it after the intervention. Happy and friendly. Too big. Wanted it to manage thresholds and carpets. Keeps you occupied. Perceived it more as a toy/entertainment. Easy to use. Do not feel safer.
(20) Fischinger et al. (2016) Austria	To derive implications for improvement of the PT1 with respect to usability, acceptance, and affordability.	49: No info on gender. 70+. Vision, hearing, mobility impairments	HOBBIT	Mixed method. Questionnaire Interview. Living lab. Interaction.	Skeptical in the beginning but changed. Pick up object rated most useful. Concidered slow. Preferred voice command and multimodal control. Could imagine that HOBBIT took care of them. Liked the entertainment options. Perceived all tasks as rather easy and intuitively. Mixed opinions about its helpfulness.
(21) Foukarakis et al. (2017) Greece	To determine any specific technical difficulties that may occur in a real elderly persons’ home environment as opposed to the lab environment- by the use of FIRMA framework.	18: 6 female, 12 male. Healthy and mild cognitive disorders, mild Alzheimers. No info on age.	RAMCIP	Qualitative. Observation. Living lab. Interaction.	(4) Difficulties in hearing/understanding text to speech, preferred voice command, wished for easier user interface on Skype-communication mode. Preferred dark interface, small button sizes.
(22) Gerlowska et al. (2018) Poland	To verify users’ requirements implemented into particular HRI scenarios in terms of their perceived acceptability, usability, attractiveness. To establish the level of the societal impact of the robotic assistant perceived by the participants.	18: No info on gender. 10 healthy and 8 MCI. Older adults: 55-90.	RAMCIP	Quantitative Questionnaire Semi-controlled environment Interaction.	Positively influencing users’ mood and behavior, facilitating communication, would enhance the user’s security, benefit his/her quality of life, enhance everyday functioning positively influencing the functioning of the user. Efficiency rated low. Experienced the usability of the device as neutral.
(23) Grice et al. (2013) USA	If physical contact with the robotic system is acceptable.	2: Disabled persons 8: male able bodied mean age 26.	PR2 arm with tactile sensing skin.	Mixed method. Timing, Questionnaire interview, Home/no info. Interaction.	Able bodied: Felt safe. Disabled users: felt comfortable, safe. Felt soft, not too strong. Positive to further development.
(24) Grice and Kemp (2019) USA	To investigate the use of robotic body surrogates.	16: No info on gender or age. 15 novice users 1 expert.	Willow Garage PR2	Mixed method. Questionnaire Interviews Robot data. Users operate from home to lab.	(3) Would provide a meaningful improvement in their lives. (4) Easy to use.
(25) Hendrich et al. (2015) Germany	To outline an AAL architecture that targets integrated robotic services for elderly users spanning indoor, residential, and outdoor spaces.	70: Older adults. No info gender or age	Doro	Mixed method. Questionnaire Observation Age care facility. Interaction.	(2) Disliked the size and appearance. (4) Preferred the speech interface over the tablet.
(26) Kapusta et al. (2019) USA	Evaluation of a robotic system with a person with severe quadriplegia, in his home.	Case study, motor impaired person	Autobed combined with Willow Garage PR2	Qualitative. Free form feedback. Home, in own bed. Interaction.	(3) Liked that the robot autonomously reached to the task area in pulling up the blanket. (4) Removing a bed-blanket experieced as easy, wiping youghurt from the mouth more complicated, easier with practice.
(27) Koay et al. (2014) UK	To examine the relationship between user expectations, based on social roles, and proxemics preferences in an interaction with Care-O-bot 3	30: 11 female, 19 male. 19-25.	Care-O-bot	Quantitative, Questionnaire. Living lab. Interaction.	More comfortable with the robot over time. (3) Did not distinguish between in what distance they wanted the robot to approach for delivering different objects. (4) Struggled with recalling light colors and meaning of these.
(28) Körtner et al. (2014) Austria	Developing a highly acceptable and affordable socially assistive robot supporting older adults in staying independently at home.	49: 35 female, 14 male. Older adults: 70-88, Vision, hearing, mobility impairments.	HOBBIT	Mixed methods. Questionnaire Interview Interaction.	(2) Enjoyed face and voice. Right size or smaller. (3) Experienced picking up objects, using robot as walking support, getting up of chair or after fall as very useful. Speed too slow. Can imagine robot able to take care of them. (4) Experienced controlling the robot as easy, liked both voice command and touch screen, few liked control by gestures.
(29) Lammer et al. (2014) Austria, Sweeden, Greece	To investigate the difference in the user perception of the HOBBIT robot with reciprocity fostering and normal dialogue behavior.	49: (25 controls), no info on gender. Older adults: 70+. Vision, hearing, mobility impairments and heallthy.	HOBBIT	Mixed method. Questionnaire observation. Laboratories Interaction.	(4) Positive or neutral during the tasks of the robot when bringing an object with failure. Enjoyed being surprised and being asked for help by the robot. (5) Majority of participants wanted to be called by their real names by the robot. (4) Participants helped the robot when it needed help.
(30) Lee et al. (2016) USA	To analyze how older adults make sense of assistive robots based on their everyday life and aging experiences.	7: 6 female, 1 male. Healthy, 1 person w disability. Older adults: 57-72.	Care-O-bot	Qualitative Interview Video Homes.	(1) Experienced the robot as being helpful for older adults, worried about privacy. (3) Described as “wonderful,” “great,” or “work(ing) great”, did not see themselves as the targeted audience, did not identify with the stereo-type user.
(31) Lee and Riek (2018) USA	To explore alternative ways to frame aging in assistive robotics, investigate alternative robot designs for aging based on our participants’ interpretation of aging.	9: 5 female, 4 male. Older adults: 65-85.	Care-O-bot, (Riba)	Qualitative Collaborative Interview. Cafes, residential centers, home. Video.	(1) Expressed concerns about robots monitoring all the time (3) Suggested robots with sympathy and robots that would enhance resilience.
(32) Mejia (2015) Japan	Demonstrate that interaction decisions, in terms of how an avatar and a GUI are displayed in the same screen, affect user’s impressions towards the robotics system.	24: 16 female 8 male. Older adults. No info on age.	HomeMate	Qualitative Interview observation, reaction cards. Age care facility. Interaction.	(2) Enthusiastic about interacting with the robot for longer periods of time when avatar in display with smaller GUI in categories. (3) Users was friendlier towards the robot when the interface was dominated by an avatar. Found it complicated to remember and learn the icons.
(33) Park et al. (2020) USA	To introduce and evaluate a proof-of-concept of meal-assistance system using a general-purpose mobile manipulator, a PR2 robot.	18: 9 able bodied:1 female, 8 male. 22-29 8 Motor impaired: 4 male, 4 female. 23-72.	PR2	Mixed method. Questionnaire Observation Lab, and 1 users home. Interaction.	Experienced the system safe, successful and comfortable to use. (3) One participant wished for faster feeding.
(34) Piasek and Tobis (2018) Poland	To develop and evaluate the impact of new solutions in service robotics for assisted living environments to support older people affected by MCI.	5: 4 female, 1 male. Mild cognitive decline. Older adults 66-83.	TIAGo	Quantitative Questionnaire Homes. Interaction.	(5) Experienced the robot as ”definitely not scary” positive feelings during the interaction. Described as useful and likable.
(35) Prakash et al. (2014) USA	Obtaining opinions about the appearance of the robot to identify the categories of considerations that are important to older adults.	12: 6 female, 6 male Older adults: 68-79.	PR2	Qualitative. Interviews. Homes. Interaction.	(2) Wanted their robot to look like a human or have human characteristics. They preffered non-scary, smaller sizes that would fit the home. Liked the human likeness and maneuverability. Disliked size, weight, laser scanner in the front. Most participants agreed on importance of appearance, two stated that functionalities were more important.
(36) Prakash et al. (2013) USA	To gain insights into factors that influence older adults’ attitudes toward a mobile manipulator robot for supporting medication management.	12: 6 female, 6 male. Older adults: 68-79.	PR2	Mixed method. Questionnaire Interview. Living lab. Interaction.	(3) Robots speed 10cm/s comfortable. Mixed on direction of approach. Did not intuitively understand when and how the gripper would release the medication. Willing to use the RFID necklace and to label the medication bottles, if that made the robot able to assist. Positive to reminder of medications intake, mixed on interruptions. Preferred the whole box (reliability) rather than a single pill.
(37) Pripfl et al. (2016a) Austria	Develop a low-cost robot that assists in daily living of senior citizens in private homes. Reduce the risk of falling, detect falls and handle emergencies.	7: 6 female, 1 male. Vision, hearing, mobility impairments Older adults: 75-88.	HOBBIT	Mixed method. Questionnaire Interview Homes. Interaction.	No enhanced feeling of safety at home. No perception of increased own independence (3) Appreciated picking up objects from the floor, transporting objects, emergency recognition, fitness supervision and giving reminders. (4) Errors in the actions of the robot led to frustration.
(38) Pripfl et al. (2016b) participantsAustria	To investigate how seniors experienced the interaction with the robot at home, in terms of usability, utility, support of their independent living, and their feelings of safety.	18/16: 14 female, 4 male. Older adults: 75-89.	HOBBIT	Mixed method Questionnaire Interview Homes. Interaction.	(3) Appreciated the functions of picking up objects from the floor, transporting objects, emergency recognition, fitness program, and giving reminders. Experienced the speed as too slow. (4) Prototype was intuitive to handle, but errors in the actions of the robot led to frustration.
(39) Rosenthal and Krämer (2015) Germany	To explore participants’ evaluations of human-like robots, their attitudes and emotional reactions.	38: 16: 8 female, 8 male. 27-68 22: 5-11.	AR	Qualitative, interviews. Homes/school/university. Video.	Experienced the robot as useful, positive to owning it. Some people liked the more abstract appearance with not too many human-like features. Positive to its movements. Felt safe. Household chores suitable task for robots.
(40) Saunders et al. (2016) UK	Describe an approach to service robot personalization designed to be used by carers, relatives, and elderly persons themselves.	20: 16 female, 4 male. 20-67.	Care-O-bot	Quantitative, Questionnaire Likert scale. Living lab. Interaction.	(3) Useful to teach the robot tasks, comfortable with the robot informing of a problem in the house. (4) They were able teach the robot tasks. They experienced the interface easy to use. Older aged had more difficulties in using the system.
(41) Smarr et al. (2012) USA	To determine whether older adults are open to accept robot assistance in the home, identify the tasks that older adults would accept robot assistance with in the home and categorize those tasks.	21: 15 female, 6 male. Healthy. Older adults: 65-93	PR2	Mixed method, Questionnaire Interviews No info on context. Video.	Generally willing to accept robots. (4) Willing to accept assistance from a robot in tasks within the home. Preferred assistance from a robot over a human for performing IADLs and EADLs. Less receptive to robot assistance in performing ADLs (e.g., eating/feeding self, getting dressed, shaving, walking).
(42) Smarr et al. (2014) USA	To discover the American older adults acceptance of robot assistance in the home, which actions they want robots to perform and objects they want the robots to manipulate.	21: 15 female, 6 male. Good health. Older adults: 65-93.	PR2	Mixed method Questionnaire interviews No info on context. Video.	Generally willing to accept robots. (3) Willing to accept assistance from a robot in tasks within the home. Preferred assistance from a robot over a human for performing IADLs and EADLs. Less receptive to robot assistance in performing ADLs (e.g., eating/feeding self, getting dressed, shaving, walking).
(43) Vincze et al. (2014) Austria	To test the difference in the user perception of the HOBBIT robot with a reciprocity fostering behavior and normal dialogue behavior.	49: Older adults. No info on gender or age.	HOBBIT	Mixed method Questionnaireobservation No info on context. Interaction.	Compliance and emotional responses were positive or neutral during every step of the robot task. (3) Indicate that the robot could be very helpful.(4) Easy to use.
(44) Wang et al. (2016) UK	Describe and evaluate the speech interface	47: 26 female, 21 male. Older adults: 65-79.	Doro	Quantitative Questionnaire. Testsite. Interaction.	(3) More satisfied with the SUI experience for the four services: shopping, reminding, garbage collection, and indoor escort.

Abbreviations: The table show the included papers in the Scoping Review. The aim of the papers, information provided about the participants, method and context and the participants experience of the robot after interaction or video of the robots. Both quantitative and qualitative papers are included. GUI: Graphical interface. SUI = Speech user interface. Cm/s: centimeter per second. EADL= Enhanced activities of daily living, include participation in social and enriching activities. IADL= Instrumental activities of daily living, include the ability to e.g., use the telephone, shop, prepare food, do the housekeeping and laundry, manage medications and finances, and use transportation. MCI= Mild cognitive impairments. AAL= Ambient assisted living. In papers including more than one robot, data have been extracted for the robots able to assist physically. In paper including both caretakers, health professionals and similar- data have been extracted for participants receiving assistance from a robot.

Table 4. Included papers connected to the same project.

Authors	Robot	Project
Bedaf et al. (2016/2018), Koay et al. (2014), Saunders et al. (2016)	Care-O-bot	ACCOMPANY: Acceptable Robotic Companions for the Aging Years
Piasek & Wieczorowska-Tobis (2018)	TIAGo	EnrichMe
Bajones et al. (2018, 2020), Eftring & Frennert (2016), Fischinger et al. (2016), KÖrtner et al. (2014), Lammer et al. (2014), Vincze et al. (2014)	HOBBIT	HOBBIT
Foukarakis et al. (2017), Gerlowska et al. (2018)	RAMCIP	RAMCIP: Robotic Assistant for MCI Patients at home Robotic Assistant for MCI Patients
Bevilacqua et al. (2015, 2021), Cavallo et al. (2014, 2018), DiNuovo et al. (2014/2018), Hendrich et al. (2015), Wang et al. (2015)	Doro	Robot-Era: Implementation and integration of advanced Robotic systems and intelligent Environments in real scenarios for the ageing population
Chen et al. (2013), Grice et al. (2013)	PR2	Robots for Humanity
Bakracheva et al. (2020)	ROBCO	Tele-controlled service robots to improve the quality of life of adults and the disabled
Brandl et al. (2016)	Care-O-bot	Tech4p/MeRoSy: Mensch Roboter Evolution

Abbreviations: MCI: Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Table 5. Robots and functions outlined in the papers.

Robots	AR	Care-O-Bot	Doro	HOBBIT	HomeMate	PR2	RAMCIP	ROBCO	TIAGo
Bring objects		x	x	x	x	x	x
Pick up objects				x	x	x	x
Deliver medication						x
Feeding						x
Shaving						x
Shopping assistance			x
Garbage disposal			x
Dressing						x
Pull up blanket						x
Folding towels						x
Turn on light						x	x
Entertainment				x	x				x
Exercise				x					x
Monitor/alarm		x		x			x	x	x
Videophone			x	x	x		x		x
Household chores e.g., laundry, clean up table	x		x			x	x		x
Reminders		x	x	x		x
Walking escort			x
Limited information	x			x	x			x

Images with permission from: AR: (Jouhou-System-Kougaku-Laboratory, 2022), Care-O-bot: (Fraunhofer-IPA, 2010), Doro (Hendrich et al., 2015), HOBBIT: (M.Vincze), HomeMate (Sukhan Lee, Sungkyunkwan University), Pr2: (©John Greenleigh/Flipside Studios), RAMCIP: (Kostavelis, 2018), ROBCO (Bakracheva et al., 2020), TIAGo: (© PAL Robotics 2022).

Table 6. Robot status.

Robot	Information found	Status (websites and authors)	Commercialized
AR	2009	Continuing development on other versions	–
Care–O–bot	1998	Version 4 further developed	X
Doro	2014	No info	–
HOBBIT	2014	No further development	–
HomeMate	2012	Version 4 further developed	–
PR2	1998	No further development	–
RAMCIP	2015	Further developed	–
ROBCO	2009	No information	–
TIAGo	2016	Further developed	X

Arnold, T., & Scheutz, M. (2018). Observing robot touch in context: How does touch and attitude affect perceptions of a Robot’s social qualities? [Paper presentation]. HRI ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction February 2018. 352–360. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171263

 Google Scholar

Bajones, M., Fischinger, D., Weiss, A., de la Puente, P., Wolf, D., Vincze, M., Kortner, T., Weninger, M., Papoutsakis, K., Michel, D., Qammaz, A., Panteleris, P., Foukarakis, M., Adami, I., Ioannidi, D., Leonidis, A., Antona, M., Argyros, A., … Frennert, S. (2020). Results of field trials with a mobile service robot for older adults in 16 private households [robotics 4140]. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 9(2), 1–27. (Journal of Human-Robot Interaction). https://doi.org/10.1145/3368554

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bajones, M., Fischinger, D., Weiss, A., Wolf, D., Vincze, M., De La Puente, P., Körtner, T., Weninger, M., Papoutsakis, K., Michel, D., Qammaz, A., Panteleris, P., Foukarakis, M., Adami, I., Ioannidi, D., Leonidis, A., Antona, M., Argyros, A., Mayer, P., … Frennert, S. (2018). Hobbit: Providing fall detection and prevention for the elderly in the real world [Article]. Journal of Robotics, 2018, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1754657

 Google Scholar

Bakracheva, M., Chivarov, N., & Ivanov, A. (2020). Companion robotic assistants for improving the quality of life of people with disabilities. 2020 International Conference Automatics and Informatics (ICAI), Varna, Bulgaria, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAI50593.2020.9311320

 Google Scholar

Bedaf, S., Draper, H., Gelderblom, G.-J., Sorell, T., & de Witte, L. (2016). Can a service robot which supports independent living of older people disobey a command? The views of older people, informal carers and professional caregivers on the acceptability of robots [robotics 4140]. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(3), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0336-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bedaf, S., de Witte, L., Marti, P., & Amirabdollahian, F. (2018). A multi-perspective evaluation of a service robot for seniors: The voice of different stakeholders. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology, 13(6), 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1358300

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Beer, J. M., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2015). Commanding home robots: A comparison between older adults with and without mobility loss. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(1), 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591015

 Google Scholar

Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Smarr, C.-A., Mitzner, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2012). “Commanding your robot” older adults’ preferences for methods of robot control. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 1263–1267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561224

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Smarr, C.-A., Chen, T. L., Hawkins, K., Nguyen, H., Deyle, T., Mitzner, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2017). Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: Attitudinal changes following brief exposure [health psychology & medicine 3360]. Gerontechnology, 16(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2017.16.1.003.00

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Bevilacqua, R., Felici, E., Marcellini, F., Glende, S., Klemcke, S., Conrad, I., Esposito, R., Cavallo, F., & Dario, P. (2015). Robot-era project: Preliminary results on the system usability. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9188, 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20889-3_51

 Google Scholar

Bevilacqua, R., Felici, E., Amabili, G., Maranesi, E., & Cavallo, F. (2021). Designing acceptable robots for assisting older adults: A pilot study on the willingness to interact. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), 10686. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010686

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brandl, C., Mertens, A., & Schlick, C. M. (2016). Human-robot interaction in assisted personal services: Factors influencing distances that humans will accept between themselves and an approaching service robot [robotics 4140]. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 26(6), 713–727. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20675

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cavallo, F., Limosani, R., Manzi, A., Bonaccorsi, M., Esposito, R., DiRocco, M., Pecora, F., Teti, G., Saffiotti, A., & Dario, P. (2014). Development of a socially believable multi-robot solution from town to home [robotics 4140]. Cognitive Computation, 6(4), 954–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-014-9290-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cavallo, F., Esposito, R., Limosani, R., Manzi, A., Dario, P., Bevilacqua, R., Felici, E., Lattanzio, F., DiNuovo, A., & Cangelosi, A. (2018). Robotic services acceptance in smart environments with older adults: User satisfaction and acceptability study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(9), e264. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9460

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, T. L., Ciocarlie, M., Cousins, S., Grice, P. M., Hawkins, K., Kaijen, H., Kemp, C. C., Chih-Hung, K., Lazewatsky, D. A., Leeper, A. E., Hai, N., Paepcke, A., Pantofaru, C., Smart, W. D., & Takayama, L. (2013). Robots for humanity: Using assistive robotics to empower people with disabilities. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 20(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2012.2229950

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Deutsch, I., Erel, H., Paz, M., Hoffman, G., & Zuckerman, O. (2019). Home robotic devices for older adults: Opportunities and concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DiNuovo, A., Broz, F., Belpaeme, T., Cangelosi, A., Cavallo, F., Esposito, R., & Dario, P. (2014). A web based multi-modal interface for elderly users of the robot-era multi-robot services. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), San Diego, CA, USA, 2186–2191. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2014.6974248

 Google Scholar

DiNuovo, A., Broz, F., Wang, N., Belpaeme, T., Cangelosi, A., Jones, R., Esposito, R., Cavallo, F., & Dario, P. (2018). The multi-modal interface of robot-era multi-robot services tailored for the elderly [robotics 4140]. Intelligent Service Robotics, 11(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-017-0237-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eftring, H., & Frennert, S. (2016). Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors [gerontology 2860]. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 49(4), 274–281. (Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1064-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fischinger, D., Einramhof, P., Papoutsakis, K., Wohlkinger, W., Mayer, P., Panek, P., Hofmann, S., Koertner, T., Weiss, A., Argyros, A., & Vincze, M. (2016). Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2014.09.029

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Foukarakis, M., Antona, M., & Stephanidis, C. (2017). Applying a multimodal user interface development framework on a domestic service robot. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, Island of Rhodes, Greece. https://doi.org/10.1145/3056540.3076187

 Google Scholar

Gerlowska, J., Skrobas, U., Grabowska-Aleksandrowicz, K., Korchut, A., Szklener, S., Szczesniak-Stanczyk, D., Tzovaras, D., & Rejdak, K. (2018). Assessment of perceived attractiveness, usability, and societal impact of a multimodal robotic assistant for aging patients with memory impairments. Frontiers in Neurology, 9, 392. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00392

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grice, P. M., Killpack, M. D., Jain, A., Vaish, S., Hawke, J., & Kemp, C. C. (2013). Whole-arm tactile sensing for beneficial and acceptable contact during robotic assistance. IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Seattle, WA, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650464

 Google Scholar

Grice, P. M., & Kemp, C. C. (2019). In-home and remote use of robotic body surrogates by people with profound motor deficits. Public Library of Science One, 14(3), e0212904. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212904

 Google Scholar

Hendrich, N., Bistry, H., & Zhang, J. (2015). Architecture and software design for a service robot in an elderly-care scenario. Engineering, 1(1), 027–035. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-ENG-2015007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kapusta, A. S., Grice, P. M., Clever, H. M., Chitalia, Y., Park, D., & Kemp, C. C. (2019). A system for bedside assistance that integrates a robotic bed and a mobile manipulator. Public Library of Science One, 14(10), e0221854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221854

 Google Scholar

Koay, K. L., Syrdal, D. S., Ashgari-Oskoei, M., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2014). Social roles and baseline proxemic preferences for a domestic service robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(4), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0232-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Körtner, T., Schmid, A., Batko-Klein, D., & Gisinger, C. (2014). Meeting requirements of older users? Robot prototype trials in a home-like environment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8515, 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07446-7_63

 Google Scholar

Lammer, L., Huber, A., Weiss, A., & Vincze, M. (2014). Mutual care: How older adults react when they should help their care robot. AISB 2014 – 50th Annual Convention of the AISB.

 Google Scholar

Lee, H. R., Tan, H., & Sabanovic, S. (2016). That robot is not for me: Addressing stereotypes of aging in assistive robot design. 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2016, New York, NY, USA, 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745148

 Google Scholar

Lee, H. R., & Riek, L. D. (2018). Reframing assistive robots to promote successful aging [robotics 4140]. ACM Transactions of Human-Robot Interaction, 7(1), 1–23. (Journal of Human-Robot Interaction). https://doi.org/10.1145/3203303

 Google Scholar

Mejia, A. (2015). Robotic interfaces design avatar and GUI competing for older user’s attention. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9193. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20913-5_28

 Google Scholar

Park, D., Hoshi, Y., Mahajan, H. P., Kim, H. K., Erickson, Z., Rogers, W. A., & Kemp, C. C. (2020). Active robot-assisted feeding with a general-purpose mobile manipulator: Design, evaluation, and lessons learned [article]. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 124, Article 103344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2019.103344

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Piasek, J., & Wieczorowska-Tobis, K. (2018). Acceptance and long-term use of a social robot by elderly users in a domestic environment. Proceedings – 2018 11th International Conference on Human System Interaction, HSI 2018, Gdansk, Poland. https://doi.org/10.1109/HSI.2018.8431348

 Google Scholar

Prakash, A., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2014). Older adults’ reactions to a robot’s appearance in the context of home use. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Bielefeld, Germany, 268–269. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559790

 Google Scholar

Prakash, A., Beer, J. M., Deyle, T., Smarr, C. A., Chen, T. L., Mitzner, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2013). Older adults’ medication management in the home: How can robots help? ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Tokyo, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483600

 Google Scholar

Pripfl, J., Körtner, T., Batko-Klein, D., Hebesberger, D., Weninger, M., & Gisinger, C. (2016a). Social service robots to support independent living: Experiences from a field trial [article]. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 49(4), 282–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1067-4

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pripfl, J., Körtner, T., Batko-Klein, D., Hebesberger, D., Weninger, M., Gisinger, C., Frennert, S., Eftring, H., Antona, M., Adami, I., Weiss, A., Bajones, M., & Vincze, M. (2016b). Results of a real world trial with a mobile social service robot for older adults. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2016, Christchurch, New Zealand, 497–498. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451824

 Google Scholar

Rosenthal von der Pütten, A. M., & Krämer, N. C. (2015). Individuals’ evaluations of and attitudes towards potentially uncanny robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 799–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0321-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saunders, J., Syrdal, D. S., Koay, K. L., Burke, N., & Dautenhahn, K. (2016). ‘Teach me-show me’-end-user personalization of a smart home and companion robot [article]. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 46(1), 27–40. Article 7322264. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2015.2445105

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Smarr, C. A., Prakash, A., Beer, J. M., Mitzner, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2012). Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 56(1), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561009

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Smarr, C.-A., Mitzner, T. L., Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Chen, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2014). Domestic robots for older adults: Attitudes, preferences, and potential [gerontology 2860]. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0220-0

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vincze, M., Zagler, W., Lammer, L., Weiss, A., Huber, A., Fischinger, D., Körtner, T., Schmid, A., & Gisinger, C. (2014). Towards a robot for supporting older people to stay longer independent at home [Paper presentation]. Proceedings for the Joint Conference of ISR 2014 – 45th International Symposium on Robotics and Robotik 2014 – 8th German Conference on Robotics, ISR/ROBOTIK 2014, Munich. Tokyo, Japan.

 Google Scholar

Wang, N., Broz, F., DiNuovo, A., Belpaeme, T., & Cangelosi, A. (2016). A user-centric design of service robots speech interface for the elderly. Recent Advances in Nonlinear Speech Processing, 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28109-4_28

 Google Scholar