Exploring Robotic Care for Dementia with Ralf Vetter
In this deep-dive interview, meet Ralf Vetter, PhD student from the Human-Computer Interaction Research Group at IT:U. His research is positioned between human-computer interaction, psychology, care ethics, and post-humanist theories. His doctoral thesis focuses on robotic care for people living with dementia, blending participatory design with advanced tech in one of the most sensitive areas of care. Some mind-opening insights from this interview:
- Why it’s essential to involve people with dementia in the technology design process
- Ethical challenges when bringing robotics into care
- How to handle consent and readiness for participation
- How an old-fashioned dial phone + AI prototype is sparking connection
Can you briefly walk us through your current research and your doctoral thesis on robotics and dementia care?
My doctoral thesis focuses on how we can design robotic technologies—broadly defined—for use in dementia care contexts. I’ve been conducting this research as part of the FWF-funded research project “Caring Robots” that explores how robotic technologies can support care environments. At first, we made a conscious decision to begin with contextual field studies. Rather than jumping straight into designing technology, we wanted to understand what “good care” means—especially in the context of dementia. For me that meant going directly into care environments to observe and engage with both care professionals and the people receiving care. Or rather, those who perform care together—because care is always a shared activity.
We conducted these studies in Austrian care homes and mobile care settings, with support from our project partner Caritas Wien. I spent time in a long-term care home where most residents lived permanently due to their care needs. About 80% of residents in such settings live with some form of dementia, often alongside other health conditions. I knew those numbers beforehand, but being there in person made it real. Seeing, feeling, and engaging with the people living with dementia had a profound effect on me. That was when I knew I wanted to focus my research specifically on dementia care. People living with dementia are often among the most vulnerable in society. They’re frequently marginalized or excluded from conversations that directly affect them. Due to memory loss and other cognitive symptoms stigmatizing their status in society, their voices often go unheard. That realization shaped one of the core principles of my research: participation.
“My work is rooted in participatory design. I want to involve people with dementia—and the professionals who support them—in the design of the technologies that may one day become part of their daily lives. If these tools are to be meaningful, they must reflect the needs, desires, and lived realities of the people they are intended to support. Giving them a voice in the design process isn’t just respectful — it’s essential to design good technologies.”
You’re tackling a sensitive topic: dementia care. What do you see as the biggest ethical challenge when bringing robotics into such intimate human care spaces?
The biggest ethical challenge I’ve experienced in my work is that you really need to look very closely at the questions being raised—especially when working with people living with dementia. It’s essential to develop a nuanced understanding of how people, even those with more advanced forms of dementia, express themselves. There’s a common assumption—people may imagine individuals with dementia as repeating themselves or being non-verbal. But spending time in the field, doing ethnographic research, makes it very clear that they do communicate—just differently. Their expressions are often implicit, subtle, and non-verbal. So, as a researcher, you need to be incredibly perceptive and sensitive to those cues to ensure they’re truly participating and comfortable.
Another main challenge is that many of the participants I work with have legal guardians—often close relatives, sometimes a legal entity—who must give consent for their participation in the research. But that’s only the beginning of ethical practice, not the end. Beyond legal consent, we also work with what’s called informed assent—where participants themselves, in the moment, indicate through their behavior, mood, or expressions whether they feel okay about being part of an activity. I’m thinking of one participant who communicates with a smile or a nod—those are the signs I rely on to understand if they’re feeling comfortable and want to take part that day. Developing this kind of sensitivity is a major ethical responsibility when working with this population.
“It is impossible to replace human care through technology— rather we should strive to create technologies that reflect and promote the values of good care. And part of that is making sure that people with dementia are well supported during the research process. That includes making sure caregivers are involved, monitoring participants’ mood and condition, and ensuring no one is overwhelmed or pressured.”
Can you give an example of how robotics can help in dementia care—or share a prototype you’re currently working on?
One thing I’ve learned through my research is that when it comes to dementia, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. Dementia itself is an umbrella term for various syndromes—Alzheimer’s is the most common, but there’s also vascular dementia, Lewy-body dementia, and others.
Still, a well-known example—though not from my own research—is a robotic therapy pet called Paro. It looks like a white baby seal. It vibrates, moves its tail, and blinks. Many people with dementia find it comforting; they enjoy cuddling with it and interacting with it. But I can also think of five people I’ve worked with who would immediately throw that seal robot against the wall. So again, it really depends on the person.
In the research with my collaborators, we are now testing a prototype that looks like an old-fashioned dial telephone. When someone picks up the receiver, instead of calling a person, they’re connected to a large language model. It’s designed to have a certain style of conversation, tailored to people with dementia. We further provide the model some background about the individual so it can personalize the responses. We’re still in the early trial phase, and yes, there are technical hiccups—as is typical with prototypes. But what’s interesting is that the participants seem to genuinely enjoy the interaction. The voice of this artificial entity, coming through the phone, seems to offer them something meaningful. It’s not just about the content of the conversation—it’s the act of being listened to, of being acknowledged, that makes a difference. And in many cases, that kind of attention is something they don’t always get in daily life. So yes, I think that’s one way to explain how robotics—or AI-driven tools—can offer support in dementia care.
In your research, you often mention “good dementia care.” How do you define what good means in this context?
That’s a good question—and a tough one. The idea of “good” in dementia care doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all definition either. It depends entirely on the person with dementia—who they are, what they need, how they want to live, and how they want to express themselves. This closely aligns with the principle of person-centered care, which is the prevailing paradigm in dementia care. It means organizing care around the individual’s preferences and values. In that sense, the “good” is not something I define from the outside—it’s something that emerges with the person, through participatory design and engagement.
My research also draws from care theory, particularly the work of Tom Kitwood. He introduced the concept of “personhood” in dementia care in the 1990s, emphasizing that dementia is not just a neurological condition—it’s also shaped by the way society and caregivers interact with the person. So, “good care” is intersubjective. It’s co-created through interactions between the person with dementia and their environment—especially the people and things around them.
That’s where technology comes in. Technologies can influence those interactions and potentially support a more positive, more personalized care experience. So in that way, they can also contribute to what we define as “good.” I do want to emphasize, though, that the “good” shouldn’t be projected externally by researchers or designers. It’s not about imposing our own ideals. At the same time, we can’t entirely remove our perspective—we bring in questions, ideas, and areas we think are important. So there’s a tension there, a balance to strike. And being aware of that balance is a critical part of doing this kind of research responsibly.
Imagine your research reaches its full potential—what kind of impact would it have in 5, 10, or 20 years?
That’s a beautiful question to dream about. What I really hope is that the way I approach research—especially involving people with dementia directly and giving them a voice—becomes more widely adopted. And not just for technology development, but for any area that affects their lives.
Looking five, ten, even twenty years ahead, we’ll be facing major challenges in dementia care due to demographic shifts and a shrinking care workforce. My hope is that this kind of participatory research can be a small but meaningful contribution to addressing those challenges—by helping us design technologies, processes, and systems that truly fit the needs of people with dementia in their everyday lives and support providing the best possible care for them.
If my work can help shape a broader mindset shift—toward more inclusive, human-centered approaches in dementia research and care—that would be the most valuable outcome I could hope for.
🎧 Want to hear the full story?
Listen to the complete interview to experience Ralf’s work in his own words — bringing more depth, detail, and emotion to the story behind the research. The audio version makes this conversation more accessible to everyone and gives space to reflect on the human side of innovation.
In the full interview, you’ll hear:
- Ralf’s favorite tea for a good chat (and the movie world he’d live in)
- His journey from psychology to participatory design of robotics
- His reflections on interdisciplinary and project-based learning at IT:U
- His advice for future IT:U students — even those coming from a less technical background
Media
