Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

The Design of On-Body Robots for Older Adults

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A two-phase co-design with 13 older adults yields a two-level design space and three principles for on-body robots that move across the body.

desk verdict Useful co-design study with a real transparency gap: the two-level design space needs an explicit audit trail before I'd rely on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02725 v1 pith:PNY74JVJ submitted 2025-02-04 cs.RO cs.HC

Victor Nikhil Antony , Clara Jeon , Jiasheng Li , Ge Gao , Huaishu Peng , Anastasia K. Ostrowski , Chien-Ming Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords on-bodyrobotswearableco-designolderadultshuman-robotinteractiondesignspaceprinciples
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish a structured design space for on-body robots—small wearable robots that move across the body—specifically for older adults. The authors ran two phases of co-design workshops with 13 independently living older adults, first diverging on possible applications and then converging on three concrete applications (massage, physical therapy, and walking). From these workshops they derive a two-level design space: context, human, and application on the first level, and robot and communication factors on the second. They also articulate three design principles: adapt to social norms, practical interaction design, and clear utility with cohesive identity. If this framework is useful, it gives researchers a shared vocabulary and an initial map for building and evaluating on-body robots for aging users.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-level design space itself, composed of Level 1 scopes (context, human, application) and Level 2 factors (robot: embodiment, topology, perception, autonomy, adoption; communication: modality, content). Design anchors are the boundaries that yield the three design principles, and design units indicate which Level 2 factors should be considered together. The paper uses Calico, a small track-based robot probe, to ground participants' design thinking across brainstorming, experience-flow worksheets, and bodystorming sessions, with thematic analysis converting workshop data into the framework.

What would settle it

If a co-design study with a more diverse group of older adults—varying in physical and cognitive abilities—systematically produced design themes that cannot be mapped onto the proposed Level 1 scopes or Level 2 factors, the framework's comprehensiveness would be disproven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the interaction design space for on-body robots for older adults can be characterized by a two-level structure in which scoping concepts—context, human, and application—bound the exploration of design factors for the robot and for communication. Design anchors define boundaries that translate into three design principles (DP1, DP2, DP3), and design units show which factors must be considered jointly, such as embodiment and topology or modality and content. The authors argue that this framework is grounded in the lived experiences and design activities of the older adult participants themselves, and that it can serve as an initial structured map for research and prototyping rather than a fixed specification.

Load-bearing premise

The framework is assumed to be informative for older adults generally, even though it is built from 13 independently living, mostly Caucasian participants, one track-based robot probe, and short workshop sessions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can use the design space to identify and structure open research questions, such as how to design olfactory output or how to manage multiple on-body robots distributed across the body.
  • Prototype builders can start from the Level 1 scopes and then systematically explore Level 2 factors to generate feasible on-body robot concepts for older adults.
  • The three design principles give concrete guidance: keep the robot discreet and context-aware for social norms, make physical interactions comfortable and non-intrusive, and ensure the robot has clear utility and a cohesive identity.
  • The framework highlights that communication with on-body robots should be multimodal and content-aware, balancing supportive and informative cues to avoid sensory overload.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the framework generalizes beyond the participant group, it could serve as a generative checklist for designing on-body robots for other populations with sensory or motor constraints, such as people who are blind or have limited mobility.
  • The emphasis on co-presence suggests a single robot may need to dynamically adjust its expressiveness depending on whether the user is alone, with family, or in public—an idea the paper mentions but does not fully develop.
  • A longitudinal deployment study with a functional on-body robot in daily life would likely surface additional factors, such as long-term maintenance and changing trust, that short workshops cannot capture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a two-phase co-design study with 13 independently living older adults, using the authors' Calico on-body robot as a design probe. In phase 1, exploratory workshops elicited a broad range of imagined applications; in phase 2, application-focused workshops converged on three domains (massage, physical therapy, walking) to develop concrete interaction designs. The authors present two co-designed applications (a fall-risk-mitigating walking sentinel and a gamified physical therapy coach) and then characterize a two-level design space with Level 1 scopes (context, human, application) and Level 2 factors (robot, communication), linked by design anchors and design units. Three design principles are proposed: DP1 (adapt to social norms), DP2 (practical interaction design), and DP3 (clear utility and cohesive identity). The paper also offers reflections on co-designing with older adults and acknowledges demographic and methodological limitations.

Significance. If the proposed framework is accepted, it would provide one of the first structured maps of the interaction design space for on-body, movable robots, a topic with little prior HRI literature. The study's strengths include a clearly described two-phase method, the use of a tangible design probe, the inclusion of participant quotes, and a published codebook. The paper also makes a practical contribution by identifying concrete design factors (e.g., embodiment, topology, autonomy, communication modality and content) and by demonstrating how bodystorming can surface embodied design constraints. The claims are modestly scoped as an 'initial' framework, and the authors are transparent about the small, homogeneous participant sample. However, the central analytical constructs—design anchors and design units—are not shown to follow from the data, and this is the main weakness that limits the framework's current evidentiary status.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-D and V] The central constructs of the design space are not operationalized in the reported analysis. Section III-D states that, after thematic coding, the authors 'mapped interactions between these concepts (units and anchors) through iterative team discussions,' but the Supplementary codebook (Table III) contains no codes for 'anchor,' 'unit,' or 'design principle,' and Section V introduces these terms only with informal definitions. Because the two-level design space in Fig. 4 is the paper's main contribution, the manuscript must provide an audit trail—for example, representative coded excerpts, co-occurrence tables, or an analytic memo showing which participant data generated each scope, factor, anchor, and unit. Without this, readers cannot distinguish a data-grounded characterization from an interpretive gloss, and the framework cannot be independently adjudicated.
  2. [V] Design units are asserted but never enumerated. Section V defines design units only as Level 2 factors that 'should be considered jointly,' and the text gives no list of what the design units actually are, nor does Fig. 4 clearly mark them. This matters because Section VI-A motivates open research questions by appealing to 'the interplay within design units' (e.g., 'embodiments suitable for multiple on-body robots'). The manuscript should enumerate the proposed design units explicitly and, for each, provide evidence from the workshops (e.g., the bodystorming example where visual feedback was abandoned for haptic feedback due to posture).
  3. [VIII and Table I] The scope of the claimed design space is broader than the evidence supports. The abstract and Section V present 'a design space' and 'key design principles' for on-body robots for older adults, yet the study draws on 13 participants who are predominantly Caucasian, independently living, and recruited with a single inclusion criterion (age 65+), and it uses a single design probe (Calico) across short workshops. The limitations section acknowledges these points in general terms, but the framing should be tightened: either qualify the contribution as an initial design space for this particular participant group and probe (which is defensible), or add transferability evidence such as comparison with other older-adult subgroups or other on-body robot probes. This is load-bearing because the paper's title and abstract generalize beyond the empirical basis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III-B] The sentence 'We also accounted for participants' enthusiasm, for certain ideas' contains an intrusive comma after 'enthusiasm'; the comma should be removed or the phrase rephrased.
  2. [V-E] The phrase 'designing on-robots to convey more complex information' appears to contain a typo; it should likely read 'designing on-body robots' or 'designing the robot.'
  3. [Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 1] The visual guide is dense, and the main text does not explain the graphical conventions (solid vs. dashed lines, box vs. circle shapes). A legend or caption note defining each graphical element would make the figure more self-contained.
  4. [V-E] The paper uses 'Modality' as a design factor in the text, while Fig. 4 and the Supplementary materials use 'Input Modality' and 'Output Modality' separately. This naming inconsistency should be reconciled.
  5. [Supplementary Table II] The caption heading 'ORGANIZATION OF PHASE 1 APPLICATIONS ALONG ROBOT TIME ON USER AND CO-PRESENSE CONTEXT DIMENSIONS' contains a typo: 'CO-PRESENSE' should be 'CO-PRESENCE.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the design-space framework is presented as an interpretive synthesis of workshop data, not as a prediction derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a qualitative design space (scopes, factors, anchors, units) and three design principles that synthesize co-design workshop findings. This is an inductive thematic-analysis output, not a quantity fitted to data and then re-predicted under a new name. Section III-D describes independent coding using a codebook, with disagreements resolved through discussion, followed by iterative team discussions to group codes into higher-level concepts and to map interactions between them. The supplementary codebook (Table III) contains data-level codes for location, co-presence, kinesiology, embodiment, topology, perception, autonomy, communication modality, and content, which correspond to the factors reported in Section V. Although the terms 'anchor' and 'unit' do not appear as literal codebook entries, the paper states that these constructs emerged from mapping interactions between concepts during team discussions, and the design principles are explicitly framed as principles derived from workshops rather than as empirical predictions. No equation, fitted parameter, or quantitative result is reused as its own output. Self-citations, including the Calico design probe [15] and prior co-design methodology papers [21, 45, 55], are used as tools and methodological grounding; the truth of the design-space framework does not rest on the validity of those prior results. The limitation statement in Section VIII acknowledges that the participant sample is not fully representative and that future implementation and evaluation are needed, but that is a generalizability and validation concern, not circularity. The skeptic's audit-trail concern is about transparency and falsifiability of qualitative analysis, which is a legitimate methodological critique but does not fit any of the enumerated circularity patterns: there is no self-definitional reduction, no fitted input called a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no known result merely renamed. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The design space rests on qualitative inference from workshop data. The main inputs are participant self-reports and artifacts, the choice of Calico as the probe, the coding process, and the assumption of transfer beyond the participant group. No numerical parameters are fitted.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Co-design workshop outputs, including mind maps, worksheets, and bodystorming enactments, are valid evidence for design requirements.
    The central framework is built entirely from participant-generated artifacts; Section III-D describes coding but not validation against behavioral measures.
  • domain assumption Calico, a track-based robot built by co-authors, adequately represents the class of on-body movable robots.
    Section III Design Probe uses Calico as the only probe; the paper notes in Section VIII that additional workshops with other on-body robots could provide further insights.
  • domain assumption Thematic saturation was reached with 13 participants and the resulting categories are stable.
    No saturation analysis or inter-rater reliability statistic is reported; two researchers coded and resolved disagreements through discussion (Section III-D).
  • domain assumption Findings generalize beyond the specific participant sample.
    The paper frames the design space as initial guidance, and Section VIII acknowledges the sample is not representative of the full older adult population.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Design of On-Body Robots for Older Adults." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PNY74JVJ

@misc{pith2026250202725,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Design of On-Body Robots for Older Adults},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PNY74JVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02725}
}
read the original abstract

Wearable technology has significantly improved the quality of life for older adults, and the emergence of on-body, movable robots presents new opportunities to further enhance well-being. Yet, the interaction design for these robots remains under-explored, particularly from the perspective of older adults. We present findings from a two-phase co-design process involving 13 older adults to uncover design principles for on-body robots for this population. We identify a rich spectrum of potential applications and characterize a design space to inform how on-body robots should be built for older adults. Our findings highlight the importance of considering factors like co-presence, embodiment, and multi-modal communication. Our work offers design insights to facilitate the integration of on-body robots into daily life and underscores the value of involving older adults in the co-design process to promote usability and acceptance of emerging wearable robotic technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02725 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We engaged older adults as co-designers of on-body robots using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our two-phased design process consisted of three exploratory workshops for divergent ideation of use cases for on-body robots and application-focused [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Storyboard visualizing key components of the co-designed interaction of an on-body robot as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We characterize an initial two-level design space for on-body robots consisting of design scopes and interconnected design factors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A visual guide to enable researchers and designers working on on-body robots to easily use our design space. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment: a randomized trial,

    C. D. Mulrow, C. Aguilar, J. E. Endicott, M. R. Tuley, R. Velez, W. S. Charlip, M. C. Rhodes, J. A. Hill, and L. A. DeNino, “Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment: a randomized trial,” Annals of internal medicine, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 188–194, 1990

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    Real-time continuous glucose moni- toring facilitates feelings of safety in older adults with type 1 diabetes: a qualitative study,

    M. L. Litchman and N. A. Allen, “Real-time continuous glucose moni- toring facilitates feelings of safety in older adults with type 1 diabetes: a qualitative study,” Journal of diabetes science and technology, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 988–995, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Community-dwelling older adults’ acceptance of smartwatches for health and location tracking,

    J. Chung, H. R. Brakey, B. Reeder, O. Myers, and G. Demiris, “Community-dwelling older adults’ acceptance of smartwatches for health and location tracking,” International journal of older people nursing, vol. 18, no. 1, p. e12490, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Epidermal electronics,

    D.-H. Kim, N. Lu, R. Ma, Y .-S. Kim, R.-H. Kim, S. Wang, J. Wu, S. M. Won, H. Tao, A. Islam, K. J. Yu, T. il Kim, R. Chowdhury, M. Ying, L. Xu, M. Li, H.-J. Chung, H. Keum, M. McCormick, P. Liu, Y .-W. Zhang, F. G. Omenetto, Y . Huang, T. Coleman, and J. A. Rogers, “Epidermal electronics,” Science, vol. 333, no. 6044, pp. 838–843, 2011. [Online]. Availabl...

    doi:10.1126/science.1206157 2011

  5. [5]

    Iskin: flexible, stretchable and visually customizable on-body touch sensors for mobile computing,

    M. Weigel, T. Lu, G. Bailly, A. Oulasvirta, C. Majidi, and J. Steimle, “Iskin: flexible, stretchable and visually customizable on-body touch sensors for mobile computing,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2015, pp. 2991– 3000

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Nailo: fingernails as an input surface,

    H.-L. Kao, A. Dementyev, J. A. Paradiso, and C. Schmandt, “Nailo: fingernails as an input surface,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2015, pp. 3015– 3018

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Implanted user interfaces,

    C. Holz, T. Grossman, G. Fitzmaurice, and A. Agur, “Implanted user interfaces,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems , 2012, pp. 503–512

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Project jacquard: interactive digital textiles at scale,

    I. Poupyrev, N.-W. Gong, S. Fukuhara, M. E. Karagozler, C. Schwesig, and K. E. Robinson, “Project jacquard: interactive digital textiles at scale,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2016, pp. 4216–4227

    work page 2016

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Beauty technology: body surface computing,

    K. Vega and H. Fuks, “Beauty technology: body surface computing,” Computer, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 71–75, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Technology for aging in place,

    L. M. Orlov, “Technology for aging in place,” Aging in Place Technology Watch, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Designing digital technologies and safeguards for improving activities and well-being for aging in place,

    H. Fournier, I. Kondratova, and H. Molyneaux, “Designing digital technologies and safeguards for improving activities and well-being for aging in place,” in HCI International 2020–Late Breaking Papers: Uni- versal Access and Inclusive Design: 22nd HCI International Conference,...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Design and control of an exoskeleton for the elderly and patients,

    K. Kong and D. Jeon, “Design and control of an exoskeleton for the elderly and patients,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on mechatronics , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 428–432, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Modular hip exoskeleton improves walking function and reduces sedentary time in community-dwelling older adults,

    C. Jayaraman, K. R. Embry, C. K. Mummidisetty, Y . Moon, M. Giffhorn, S. Prokup, B. Lim, J. Lee, Y . Lee, M. Lee et al. , “Modular hip exoskeleton improves walking function and reduces sedentary time in community-dwelling older adults,” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabili...

    2022

  6. [14]

    What do older adults and clinicians think about traditional mobility aids and exoskeleton technology?

    M. M. Jung and G. D. Ludden, “What do older adults and clinicians think about traditional mobility aids and exoskeleton technology?” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1– 17, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Calico: Relocatable on-cloth wearables with fast, reliable, and precise locomotion,

    A. Sathya, J. Li, T. Rahman, G. Gao, and H. Peng, “Calico: Relocatable on-cloth wearables with fast, reliable, and precise locomotion,” Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. , vol. 6, no. 3, Sep

  8. [16]

    Skinbot: A wearable skin climbing robot,

    A. Dementyev, J. Hernandez, S. Follmer, I. Choi, and J. Paradiso, “Skinbot: A wearable skin climbing robot,” in Adjunct Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2017, pp. 5–6

    2017

  9. [17]

    Rovables: Miniature on-body robots as mobile wearables,

    A. Dementyev, H.-L. Kao, I. Choi, D. Ajilo, M. Xu, J. A. Paradiso, C. Schmandt, and S. Follmer, “Rovables: Miniature on-body robots as mobile wearables,” in Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , 2016, pp. 111–120

    2016

  10. [18]

    Hall, The Hidden Dimension

    E. Hall, The Hidden Dimension . Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1990. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id= zGYPwLj2dCoC

    1990

  11. [19]

    Participatory design,

    M. J. Muller and S. Kuhn, “Participatory design,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 24–28, 1993

    1993

  12. [20]

    Maximizing the benefits of participatory design for human–robot interaction research with older adults,

    W. A. Rogers, T. Kadylak, and M. A. Bayles, “Maximizing the benefits of participatory design for human–robot interaction research with older adults,” Human factors, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 441–450, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Co-designing with older adults, for older adults: robots to promote physical activity,

    V . N. Antony, S. M. Cho, and C.-M. Huang, “Co-designing with older adults, for older adults: robots to promote physical activity,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2023, pp. 506–515

    2023

  14. [22]

    A soft wearable robot for the shoulder: Design, characterization, and preliminary testing,

    C. T. O’Neill, N. S. Phipps, L. Cappello, S. Paganoni, and C. J. Walsh, “A soft wearable robot for the shoulder: Design, characterization, and preliminary testing,” in 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1672–1678

    2017

  15. [23]

    A portable powered soft exoskele- ton for shoulder assistance during functional movements: Design and evaluation,

    W. Gao, A. Di Lallo, and H. Su, “A portable powered soft exoskele- ton for shoulder assistance during functional movements: Design and evaluation,” in International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR) , 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Exo-glove: A wearable robot for the hand with a soft tendon routing system,

    H. In, B. B. Kang, M. Sin, and K.-J. Cho, “Exo-glove: A wearable robot for the hand with a soft tendon routing system,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 97–105, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Lower limb wearable robots for assistance and rehabilitation: A state of the art,

    W. Huo, S. Mohammed, J. C. Moreno, and Y . Amirat, “Lower limb wearable robots for assistance and rehabilitation: A state of the art,” IEEE systems Journal , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1068–1081, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Stronger, smarter, softer: next-generation wearable robots,

    A. T. Asbeck, S. M. De Rossi, I. Galiana, Y . Ding, and C. J. Walsh, “Stronger, smarter, softer: next-generation wearable robots,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 22–33, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    A novel monolithic soft robotic thumb for an anthropomorphic prosthetic hand,

    H. Zhou, A. Mohammadi, D. Oetomo, and G. Alici, “A novel monolithic soft robotic thumb for an anthropomorphic prosthetic hand,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 602–609, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Playing the piano with a robotic third thumb: assessing constraints of human augmentation,

    A. Shafti, S. Haar, R. Mio, P. Guilleminot, and A. A. Faisal, “Playing the piano with a robotic third thumb: assessing constraints of human augmentation,” Scientific reports, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 21375, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    I need a third arm! eliciting body-based interactions with a wearable robotic arm,

    M. Muehlhaus, M. Koelle, A. Saberpour, and J. Steimle, “I need a third arm! eliciting body-based interactions with a wearable robotic arm,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2023, pp. 1–15

    2023

  22. [30]

    Wearing your arm on your sleeve: Studying usage contexts for a wearable robotic forearm,

    V . Vatsal and G. Hoffman, “Wearing your arm on your sleeve: Studying usage contexts for a wearable robotic forearm,” in 2017 26th IEEE Inter- national Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2017, pp. 974–980

    2017

  23. [31]

    The 20-dof miniature humanoid mh-2: A wearable communication system,

    Y . Tsumaki, F. Ono, and T. Tsukuda, “The 20-dof miniature humanoid mh-2: A wearable communication system,” in 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2012, pp. 3930–3935

    2012

  24. [32]

    A survey of users’ expectations towards on-body companion robots,

    H. Jiang, S. Lin, V . Prabakaran, M. R. Elara, and L. Sun, “A survey of users’ expectations towards on-body companion robots,” in Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference , 2019, pp. 621–632

    2019

  25. [33]

    Clash: Climbing vertical loose cloth,

    P. Birkmeyer, A. G. Gillies, and R. S. Fearing, “Clash: Climbing vertical loose cloth,” in 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2011, pp. 5087–5093

    2011

  26. [34]

    Social robots for older adults: Framework of activities for aging in place with robots,

    P. Alves-Oliveira, S. Petisca, F. Correia, N. Maia, and A. Paiva, “Social robots for older adults: Framework of activities for aging in place with robots,” in Social Robotics: 7th International Conference, ICSR 2015, Paris, France, October 26-30, 2015, Proceedings 7 . Springer...

    2015

  27. [35]

    Personal narratives in technology design: the value of sharing older adults’ stories in the design of social robots,

    A. K. Ostrowski, C. N. Harrington, C. Breazeal, and H. W. Park, “Personal narratives in technology design: the value of sharing older adults’ stories in the design of social robots,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, p. 716581, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Children as robot designers,

    P. Alves-Oliveira, P. Arriaga, A. Paiva, and G. Hoffman, “Children as robot designers,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , 2021, pp. 399–408

    2021

  29. [37]

    Design principles for robot-assisted feeding in social contexts,

    A. Nanavati, P. Alves-Oliveira, T. Schrenk, E. K. Gordon, M. Cakmak, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Design principles for robot-assisted feeding in social contexts,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , 2023, pp. 24–33

    2023

  30. [38]

    Reframing assistive robots to promote suc- cessful aging,

    H. R. Lee and L. D. Riek, “Reframing assistive robots to promote suc- cessful aging,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Robots for joy, robots for sorrow: community based robot design for dementia care- givers,

    S. Moharana, A. E. Panduro, H. R. Lee, and L. D. Riek, “Robots for joy, robots for sorrow: community based robot design for dementia care- givers,” in 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction (HRI) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 458–467

    2019

  32. [40]

    Steps toward participatory design of social robots: mutual learning with older adults with depression,

    H. R. Lee, S. ˇSabanovi´c, W.-L. Chang, S. Nagata, J. Piatt, C. Bennett, and D. Hakken, “Steps toward participatory design of social robots: mutual learning with older adults with depression,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interact...

    2017

  33. [41]

    Designing health and fitness apps with older adults: Examining the value of experience-based co-design,

    C. N. Harrington, L. Wilcox, K. Connelly, W. Rogers, and J. San- ford, “Designing health and fitness apps with older adults: Examining the value of experience-based co-design,” in Proceedings of the 12th EAI international conference on pervasive computing technologies for heal...

    2018

  34. [42]

    The role of co-design in wearables adoption,

    S. Nevay and C. S. Lim, “The role of co-design in wearables adoption,” in Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors 2015: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ergonomics & Human Factors , 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Participatory research principles in human- centered design: engaging teens in the co-design of a social robot,

    E. A. Bj ¨orling and E. Rose, “Participatory research principles in human- centered design: engaging teens in the co-design of a social robot,” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction , vol. 3, no. 1, p. 8, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Social robot co- design canvases: A participatory design framework,

    M. Axelsson, R. Oliveira, M. Racca, and V . Kyrki, “Social robot co- design canvases: A participatory design framework,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–39, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Long-term co-design guidelines: empowering older adults as co-designers of social robots,

    A. K. Ostrowski, C. Breazeal, and H. W. Park, “Long-term co-design guidelines: empowering older adults as co-designers of social robots,” in 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1165–1172

    2021

  38. [46]

    Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families,

    H. Hutchinson, W. Mackay, B. Westerlund, B. B. Bederson, A. Druin, C. Plaisant, M. Beaudouin-Lafon, S. Conversy, H. Evans, H. Hansen et al. , “Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing syst...

    2003

  39. [47]

    Co- designing a technology probe with experienced designers,

    P. Gough, A. B. Kocaballi, K. Z. Naqshbandi, K. Cochrane, K. Mah, A. G. Pillai, Y . Yorulmaz, A. K. Deny, and N. Ahmadpour, “Co- designing a technology probe with experienced designers,” in Proceed- ings of the 33rd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2021, pp. 1–13

    2021

  40. [48]

    Destinations matter: The association between where older adults live and their travel behavior,

    A. M. Chudyk, M. Winters, M. Moniruzzaman, M. C. Ashe, J. S. Gould, and H. McKay, “Destinations matter: The association between where older adults live and their travel behavior,” Journal of Transport & Health, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 50–57, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    Collaborative map making: A reflexive method for understanding matters of concern in design research,

    H. R. Lee, S. ˇSabanovi´c, and S. S. Kwak, “Collaborative map making: A reflexive method for understanding matters of concern in design research,” in Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2017, pp. 5678–5689

    2017

  42. [50]

    Bodystorming for movement- based interaction design,

    E. Segura, L. Vidal, and A. Rostami, “Bodystorming for movement- based interaction design,” Human Technology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 193– 251, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    Emotion encoding in human-drone interaction,

    J. R. Cauchard, K. Y . Zhai, M. Spadafora, and J. A. Landay, “Emotion encoding in human-drone interaction,” in 2016 11th ACM/IEEE Inter- national Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 263–270

    2016

  44. [52]

    Thematic analysis of qualitative data: Amee guide no. 131,

    M. Kiger and L. Varpio, “Thematic analysis of qualitative data: Amee guide no. 131,” Medical Teacher, vol. 42, pp. 1–9, 05 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Anthropomorphism and the social robot,

    B. R. Duffy, “Anthropomorphism and the social robot,” Robotics and autonomous systems, vol. 42, no. 3-4, pp. 177–190, 2003

    2003

  46. [54]

    Situated participatory design: A method for in situ design of robotic interaction with older adults,

    L. Stegner, E. Senft, and B. Mutlu, “Situated participatory design: A method for in situ design of robotic interaction with older adults,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023, pp. 1–15

    2023

  47. [55]

    From our lab to their homes: Learnings from longitudinal field research with older adults,

    A. Mahmood and C.-M. Huang, “From our lab to their homes: Learnings from longitudinal field research with older adults,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15495, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming,

    A. Oulasvirta, E. Kurvinen, and T. Kankainen, “Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming,” Personal and ubiquitous computing, vol. 7, pp. 125–134, 2003

    2003

  49. [57]

    Bodystorming as embodied designing,

    D. Schleicher, P. Jones, and O. Kachur, “Bodystorming as embodied designing,” interactions, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 47–51, 2010. The Design of On-Body Robots for Older Adults: Supplementary Materials Victor Nikhil Antony 1, Clara Jeon 1, Jiasheng Li 2, Ge Gao 2, Huaishu Peng 2, An...

    2010 arXiv

  50. [2022]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3550323

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3550323

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.