Am I 08 Lambert

467 views

Published on

Presentation at AmI-08 of study about acceptance of Ambient InteIligence by elderly people

  • Be the first to comment

Am I 08 Lambert

  1. 1. The Influence of Control on the Acceptance of Ambient Intelligence by Elderly People: an Explorative Study Lambert Zaad, M.Sc and Somaya Ben Allouch, PhD
  2. 2. Content of this presentation <ul><li>Cause of the study </li></ul><ul><li>Previous user studies </li></ul><ul><li>Home Automation </li></ul><ul><li>Measuring Acceptance &Use Intention </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Results </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul>
  3. 3. Ambient Intelligence 1/3 <ul><li>The vision of AmI proclaims a future life with small computers embedded into the environment of daily life. </li></ul><ul><li>AmI = Human Centred Computing (IPTS, 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>User friendly </li></ul><ul><li>Personalized services </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting human interaction </li></ul>
  4. 4. Ambient Intelligence 2/3 <ul><li>Positive sides : natural interaction (Aarts, 2004) , more comfort, empowering the user, saving time and money (Brey, 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Down sides :loss of privacy, autonomy and control (Bohn et al, 2004, Brey, 2005, Spiekermann, 2005) </li></ul>
  5. 5. Ambient Intelligence 3/3 <ul><li>AmI gradually appear in our daily life. </li></ul><ul><li>E.g. MIT, Philips, Microsoft designing application that should implement the vision of AmI in the consumer market. </li></ul><ul><li>However, how people react to the integration of ‘smart’ technology in our daily life is still unclear! </li></ul>
  6. 6. Previous Research 1/2 Spiekermann (2007) Film stimuli for RFID after sale services Niemel ä et al (2007) Scenarios of AmI environment for elderly people Brown et al (2007) Whereabouts Clock to enhance family values Janse et al (2007) Presence Detecting Lamp Aware Home, Georgia Tech Philips Home Lab
  7. 7. Previous Research 2/2 <ul><li>Overall conclusions of these user studies </li></ul><ul><li>Privacy concerns arose when using AmI-systems, especially when personal information was at stake </li></ul><ul><li>Automatic systems were preferred in some situations but not in others </li></ul><ul><li>The perceptual presence reassured people </li></ul><ul><li>Living Labs lack social influences (pitfall in user studies) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Home Automation 1/2 <ul><li>Because AmI is not a reality yet and to avoid the mentioned pitfall of leaving out the social environment one of the latest home automation technology is used </li></ul><ul><li>AmI as well as home automation </li></ul><ul><li>Integrate technology and services into the environment </li></ul><ul><li>Enhancing safety and comfort </li></ul><ul><li>Enhancing communication </li></ul><ul><li>(The Rathenau Institute 2007) </li></ul>
  9. 9. Home Automation 2/2 <ul><li>Actual deployed system was used, </li></ul><ul><li>Motion Sensor System (MSS) </li></ul>6 sensors are used
  10. 10. Measuring Acceptance and Use intention 1/2 Ubiquitous Computing Acceptance Model (UCAM) Spiekermann (2007)
  11. 11. Measuring Acceptance and Use intention 2/2 <ul><li>We wanted to study the use intentions of elderly people for a ‘smart’ surrounding and whether the level of control influences this use intention. </li></ul><ul><li>RQ : How does the level of control influence the use intention of Ambient Intelligence technology by elderly? </li></ul>
  12. 12. Methodology 1/2 <ul><li>3 research groups </li></ul><ul><li>Autonomous System = actual deployed version </li></ul><ul><li>User control = extra touch screen that informs users </li></ul>X - X User control - X X Autonomous system Potential Users 2 Potential Users 1 Actual Users
  13. 13. Methodology 2/2 <ul><li>User control, </li></ul><ul><li>an added touch screen checks if the gathered information by the MSS is correct. </li></ul>Example question
  14. 14. Results 1/2 Spearman’s Rho correlation test. Only significant results, tested 2-sided Correlations between the variables of the UCAM * p < 0.05, ** p < .0.01 Mann-Whitney U test Usefulness PU1 vs. PU2 : Significant difference: (U = 618.000; p < 0.05) Control: PU1 vs. PU2 : Significant difference: (U = 621.000; p < 0.05) 0.56** 0.38* Control 0.38* 0.34* 0.62* Usefulness 0.62* Cognit. Att. Use intention PU 2 Use intention PU 1 Use intention AU
  15. 15. Results 2/2 <ul><li>Qualitative results corresponds with quantitative results. </li></ul><ul><li>Direct control over communications with caregiver is appreciated over autonomous systems ( e.g. alarm trigger, touch screen, video conference) ; gives feeling of security. </li></ul><ul><li>Privacy is not an issue for most participants. </li></ul><ul><li>Subjective Norm has great influences in their attitude towards MSS. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Conclusions <ul><li>More control leads to more use intention </li></ul><ul><li>Subjective norm plays important role </li></ul><ul><li>Direct control over the MSS is appreciated over an autonomous version; increases feeling of control over well-being. </li></ul><ul><li>Spiekermann’s UC A M did not seem to fit in this study. UCAM not suited for care setting? </li></ul>
  17. 17. Discussion <ul><li>More research in role of control in care setting is needed; UCAM provides some ambiguity (control over well-being is import, privacy not) . </li></ul><ul><li>Who is the end-user of AmI in a care setting? Care taker or care giver? </li></ul><ul><li>Small group of actual users, who also depended on an alarm trigger. </li></ul>
  18. 18. The end <ul><li>Thank you for your attention. </li></ul><ul><li>Please, feel free to ask questions. </li></ul>

×