skip to main content
10.1145/3529190.3534752acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespetraConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Complexity management as an ethical challenge for AI-based age tech

Published:11 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Assistive technologies for older adults (age tech) may support individuals in living a mostly independent life in their own home environment for as long as possible. Especially age tech based on artificial intelligence (AI)-applications may enable a personalization of health and care services and facilitate quality of life. These technologies collect and process large amounts of individual data generated in the daily life and home environment of older adults through various sensors, monitor technologies, and smart wearables. Due to their focus on individual data, these technologies may be tools for tailoring health and care services to the individual needs and benefits of older adults. However, AI-based age tech comes with ethical issues linked to complexity management, i.e. the set of technical means and strategies for dealing with complex or ambiguous data, e.g. user characteristics or behavioral data. Algorithmic standardization might thus conflict with the goal of personalization. In this paper, I identify the crucial ethics issues related to AI-based age tech. I also discuss strategies for dealing with these issues and the fundamental trade-off between complexity management and the personalization of care services through AI-based age tech

References

  1. A Hasa Sapci and H Aylin Sapci. 2019. Innovative assisted living tools, remote monitoring technologies, artificial intelligence-driven solutions, and robotic systems for aging societies: systematic Review. JMIR Aging 2, 2, e15429. https://doi.org/10.2196/15429Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Madison Cohen-McFarlane, Stephanie Bennett, Bruce Wallace, Rafrik Goubran, and Frank Knoefel. 2021. Bed-based health monitoring using pressure sensitive technology: A review. IEEE Instrum Meas Mag 24, 2, 13-23. doi: 10.1109/MIM.2021.9400964Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Nirmalya Thakur and Chia Y Han. 2021. Indoor localization for personalized ambient assisted living of multiple users in multi-floor smart environments. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 5, 3, 42. https://www.mdpi.com/2504-2289/5/3/42Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Kwang-Il Kim, Shreta S Gollamudi, and Steven Steinhubl. 2017. Digital technology to enable aging in place. Exp Gerontol 88, 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2016.11.013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Yancy Lo, Selah F Lynch, Ryan J Urbanowicz, Randal S Olson, Ashley Z Ritter, Christina R Whitehouse, Melissa O'Connor, Susan K Keim, Margaret McDonald, Jason H Moore, and Kathryn H Bowles. 2019. Using machine learning on home health care assessments to predict fall risk. Stud Health Technol Inform 264, 684-688. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190310Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, and Kenneth Cukier K. 2013. Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. John Murray Publishers. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Arne Manzeschke, Gallia Assadi, and Willy Viehöver. 2016. The role of big data in ambient assisted living. International Review of Information Ethics 24, 5, 23-31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Giovanni Rubeis. 2020. The disruptive power of Artificial Intelligence. Ethical aspects of gerontechnology in elderly care. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 91, 104186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2020.104186Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. José C Castillo, Antonio Fernández-Caballero, Álvero Castro-González, Miguel A Salichs, and María TA López. 2014. A Framework for recognizing and regulating emotions in the elderly. In Pecchia L, Chen LL, Nugent C, Bravo J, eds. Ambient assisted living and daily activities, 6th International Work-Conference. In Proceedings International Workshop on Ambient Assisted Living, Belfast UK, December 2-4, 320-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13105-4_46Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Elena Lozano-Monasor, María T López, Franciso Vigo-Bustos, and Antonio Fernández-Caballero. Facial expression recognition in ageing adults: From lab to ambient assisted living. 2017. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 8, 4, 567-578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-017-0464-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Alexander Peine, Alex Faulkner, Birgit Jæger, and Ellen Moors. 2015. Science, technology and the ‘grand challenge’ of ageing — Understanding the socio-material constitution of later life. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 93, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Alexander Peine and Louis Neven. 2020. The co-constitution of ageing and technology — A model and agenda. Ageing Soc 41, 12, 2845-2866. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x20000641Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Craig Kuziemsky, Anthony J Maeder, Oommen John, Shashi B Gogia, Arindam Basu, Sushil Meher, and Marcia Ito. 2019. Role of artificial intelligence within the telehealth domain. Yearb Med Inform 28, 1, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1677897Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. WHO. World Health Organisation. 2002. Active Ageing. A Policy Framework. World Health Organisation. Geneva, Switzerland. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/67215/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf;jsessionid=57FB22E923F9AC761B51569A967AF714?sequence=1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Stephen Katz and Tom Calasanti. 2015. Critical perspectives on successful aging: Does it "appeal more than it illuminates"? Gerontologist 55, 1, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu027Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Larissa Pfaller and Mark Schweda. 2019. Excluded from the good life? An ethical approach to conceptions of active ageing. Soc Inclusion 7, 3, 44-53. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v7i3.1918Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Robert Challen, Joshua Denny, Martin Pitt, Luke Gompels, Tom Edwards, and Krisimira Tsaneva-Atanasova. 2019. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf 28, 3, 231-237. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Brent D Mittelstadt and Luciano Floridi. 2016. The ethics of big data: Current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 2, 303-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9652-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jordan Abdi, Ahmed Al-Hindawi, Tiffany Ng, and Marcela P Vizcaychipi. 2018. Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open 8, 2, e018815. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018815Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Ozgul Kara, Nikhil Churamani, and Hatice Gunes. 2021. Towards fair affective robotics: continual learning for mitigating bias in facial expression and action unit recognition. Workshop on Lifelong Learning and Personalization in Long-Term Human-Robot Interaction (LEAP-HRI) at the 16th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). ArXiv, abs/2103.09233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Daniel López Gómez and Tomás A Criado. 2021. Civilising technologies for an ageing society? The performativity of participatory methods in socio-gerontechnology. In Peine A, B.L. Marshall BL, Martin W, Neven L, eds. Socio-gerontechnology: Interdisciplinary Critical Studies of Ageing and Technology (85-98). Routledge. London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429278266Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sebastian Merkel and Alexander Kucharski. 2019. Participatory design in gerontechnology: A systematic literature review. Gerontologist 59, 1, e16-e25. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny034Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Colin G Walsh, Beenish Chaudhry, Prerna Dua, Kenneth Goodman, Bonnie Kaplan, Ramakanth Kavuluru, Anthony Solomonides, and Vignesh Subbian. 2020. Stigma, biomarkers, and algorithmic bias: Recommendations for precision behavioral health with artificial intelligence. JAMIA Open 3, 1, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooz054Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Complexity management as an ethical challenge for AI-based age tech
            Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Other conferences
              PETRA '22: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments
              June 2022
              704 pages
              ISBN:9781450396318
              DOI:10.1145/3529190

              Copyright © 2022 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 11 July 2022

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed limited
            • Article Metrics

              • Downloads (Last 12 months)47
              • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

              Other Metrics

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader

            HTML Format

            View this article in HTML Format .

            View HTML Format