Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34956009›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Using Different Error Handling Strategies to Facilitate Older Users' Interaction With Chatbots in Learning Information and Communication Technologies.

Weijane Lin, Hong-Chun Chen, Hsiu-Ping Yueh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Weijane LinDepartment of Library and Information Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hong-Chun ChenDepartment of Library and Information Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsiu-Ping YuehDepartment of Psychology, Department of Bio-Industry Communication and Development, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To support older users' accessibility and learning of the prevalent information and communication technologies (ICTs), libraries, as informal learning institutes, are committed to information literacy education activities with friendly interfaces. Chatbots using Voice User Interfaces (VUIs) with natural and intuitive interactions have received growing research and practical attention; however, older users report regular frustrations and problems in using them. To serve as a basis for the subsequent design and development of an automated dialog mechanism in senior-friendly chatbots, a between-subject user experiment was conducted with 30 older adults divided into three groups. The preliminary findings on their interactions with the voice chatbots designed with different error handling strategies were reported. Participants' behavioral patterns, performances, and the tactics they employed in interacting with the three types of chatbots were analyzed. The results of the study showed that the use of multiple error handling strategies is beneficial for older users to achieve effectiveness and satisfaction in human-robot interactions, and facilitate their attitude toward information technology. This study contributes empirical evidence in the genuine and pragmatic field of gerontechnology and expands upon voice chatbots research by exploring conversation errors in human-robot interactions that could be of further application in designing educational and living gerontechnology.

Indexed as

chatboterror handling strategieshuman-robot interactionliteracy educationolder usersvoice user interfaces

Identifiers

PMID34956009
PMCPMC8692264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.