University of South Florida Scholar Commons Rehabilitation and Mental Counseling Rehabilitation and Mental Health Counseling Faculty Publications

2009 Defining Gerontechnology for R&D Purposes Johanna E.M.H. Bronswijk Eindhoven University of Technology

Herman Bouma Eindhoven University of Technology

James L. Fozard University of South Florida, [email protected]

William D. Kearns University of South Florida, [email protected]

Gerald C. Davison University of Southern California

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/mhs_facpub

Scholar Commons Citation Bronswijk, Johanna E.M.H.; Bouma, Herman; Fozard, James L.; Kearns, William D.; Davison, Gerald C.; and Tuan, Pan-Chio, "Defining Gerontechnology for R&D Purposes" (2009). Rehabilitation and Mental Health Counseling Faculty Publications. 31. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/mhs_facpub/31

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Rehabilitation and Mental Health Counseling at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Rehabilitation and Mental Health Counseling Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Johanna E.M.H. Bronswijk, Herman Bouma, James L. Fozard, William D. Kearns, Gerald C. Davison, and Pan-Chio Tuan

This article is available at Scholar Commons: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/mhs_facpub/31 R e v i e w

Defining gerontechnology for R&D purposes

Johanna E.M.H. van Bronswijk PhD Department of Architecture, Building and Planning, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands E: [email protected]

Herman Bouma PhD Emeritus-professor at Eindhoven University of Technology Eindhoven, the Netherlands E: [email protected]

James L. Fozard PhD School of Aging Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33260, USA E: [email protected]

William D. Kearns PhD Department of Aging and Mental Health, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33612, USA E: [email protected]

Gerald C. Davison PhD Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, Ethel Percy Andrus Gerontology Center University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-0191, USA E: [email protected]

Pan-Chio Tuan PhD Graduate School of Gerontic Technology and Service Management Nai Kai University of Technology, Nantou, Taiwan E: [email protected]

J.E.M.H. van Bronswijk, H. Bouma, J.L. Fozard, W.D. Kearns, G.C. Davison, P-C. Tuan. Defining gerontechnology for R&D purposes. Gerontechnology 2009; 8(1):3-10; doi: 10.4017/gt.2009.08.01.002.00. Gerontechnology is an interdisciplinary field that links existing and developing technologies to the aspirations and needs of ag- ing and aged adults. It helps support ‘successful aging’, is organized according to the WHO definition of health, and is a response to the combination of the aging of society and rapidly emerging new technologies. Distinguishing it from other technology approaches is its focus on the total human life-span, its recognition of different technology generations, its cross-fertilization of specific technology and gerontology disciplines, its public health goals and the encompassing of all domains of human activity. An enhanced quality of life in older adults is the ulti- mate goal of gerontechnology. Keywords: technology generation, gerontology, quality of life, inclusive design

Winter 2009 3 Vol. 8, No 1

G8(1)Review-Bronswijk-v4.indd 3 11-3-2009 18:48:25 Defining gerontechnology

Gerontechnology is a technology domain well as sports, and (v) preferably no physical that links existing and developing technolo- restrictions as rated by a physician6. Since re- gies to the aspirations and needs of aging strictions will eventually occur, Havighurst5 and aged adults. This makes gerontechnol- postulates that old people have to adapt to ogy a key factor in social sustainability as physiological and psychological changes in it is concerned with technologically-based order to experience satisfaction in life and products, services, and environments that to age successfully. improve the functioning and quality of life1. This approach addresses all technology that Aim & method is useful for daily activities of all phases of In this contribution we will further charac- the full human life span. However, we con- terize the domain of gerontechnology and sider this technology to belong to gerontech- present its essential features. The analysis we nology only if it is targeted at a high quality offer is based mainly on the development of of life of older persons. As to medical geron- the domain as shown in the ‘International tology and , the needs have been Journal of Technology & Aging’ (1988-1992), formulated recently2. ‘Gerontechnology’ (2001-present), and the abstracts and proceedings of the inter- One of the consequences of effective geron- national gerontechnology conferences in technology is a major reduction in morbid- Eindhoven (1991), Helsinki (1996), Munich ity from chronic conditions since geron- (1999), Miami (2002), Nagoya (2005) and technology interventions can remove the Pisa (2008)7-10. determinants of such conditions from cra- dle to grave, or can decrease their effects. History Think of coaching-services for a suitable Gerontechnology began in the 1990s as a life style, or optimal indoor environmental response to two separate 20th century trends control to prevent allergies and hypersensi- that are continuing into the 21st century. tivities. In this way the building, civil, sani- First is the relative and absolute increase tary, mechanical, electrical and agriculture in the older segment of society. Second is engineer, as well as the designer of assistive a man-made technological environment technologies of the early 21st century, will that is changing fast, especially in the com- inevitably become a gerontechnologist, a munication domain. Significant engineered major morbidity fighter for the older seg- products since about 1990 include the in- ment of the population, to complement the ternet, e-mail, search engines on the web, successes of the early 20th century engineer, mobile phones, GPS (Global Positioning who protected the young against the ravag- System) and navigation tools, digital camer- ing effects of infant and child mortality due as, e-games, robots, menu-driven washing to infections. For the Dutch situation medi- machines, and other systems, services and cal researchers calculated that medical care products to make life easier and work more contributed at the most to only 20% of the efficient, and to improve social, mental and decrease in mortality in the 20th century3. physical well-being.

Gerontechnology’s ultimate goal is the im- Gerontechnology does not pursue a com- plementation of ‘successful aging’4,5, which pletely new goal or approach. The 1946 In- includes (i) a sustained good subjective ternational Health Conference of the United health assessment, (ii) continued good men- Nations approved the preamble of the Con- tal health, (iii) social support, (iv) self-rated stitution of the World Health Organization life satisfaction in eight domains, including: of 1948 that stated: ‘’Health is a state of com- income-related work, children, friendship plete physical, mental and social well-being and social contacts, hobbies, community and not merely the absence of disease or in- service activities, religion and recreation as firmity. The enjoyment of the highest attain-

Winter 2009 4 Vol. 8, No 1

G8(1)Review-Bronswijk-v4.indd 4 11-3-2009 18:48:25 Defining gerontechnology

able standard of health is one of the funda- (ii) systematically evaluate technology’s age- mental rights of every human being without specific goals for health, housing, transpor- distinction of race, religion, political belief, tation, communication and work and leisure, economic or social condition”11. It is this (iii) study how to utilize the motivating prop- high standard of social, mental and physical erties of technology, and (iv) address policy health of aged persons that gerontechnolo- issues related to technology applications, gy tries to realize. In a later document WHO such as ethics and public financing14. Dif- identified investment in people’s health and ferent professional groups have addressed their environment as a prerequisite for sus- age differences in the use of technology. tainable development12. To reach complete The American Human Factors and Ergo- health an individual or a group must be able nomics Society created a technical inter- to (i) identify aspirations, (ii) realize aspira- est group for aging in 197915. Architectural tions, (iii) satisfy needs, and (iv) change or groups and industrial designers developed cope with their environment13. Gerontech- the concept of Universal Design or Inclusive nology is a major means to achieve sustain- Design from the late 80s on16-18. Finally in able development and social sustainability. the 1990s scientists of various disciplines established an interdisciplinary field called In the 1970s, engineers, industrial designers gerontechnology19. and gerontologists recognized the need for a conceptual framework targeting people of A systems approach different ages and generations in order to (i) People and their environments are to be involve them in the planning, development, treated as a system to better predict the re- distribution and dispersion of technology, sults of technological interventions. Changes

Table 1. Some aspirations as generally perceived in the lifespan, to be fulfilled by technology; - = hardly relevant; ± = probably relevant ; + = somewhat important; ++ = important; +++ = very important; Adapted after: Bouwhuis16, Carstensen30, Chong et al.23, Graafmans et al.34, Laslett26, Leikas and Saar- iluoma35, Melenhorst30, Mollenkopf and Fozard36 The ages st nd rd th Aspiration 1 2 3 4 Formative Main working Active Frailty & period phase retirement dependence

Functional • housing and daily living - + ++ +++ independence in • transportation + ++ +++ +

• work - +++ ++ - Good health ± + ++ +++ Happiness +++ +++ +++ +++ Learning / +++ + ++ + Leisure +++ + +++ +++ Maintain and enhance communication +++ + ++ +++ Self-esteem +++ + ++ +++ Social contacts (friends) +++ + ++ +++ Sufficient financial resources for - ++ ++ +++ independence Temporal discount level of benefits of new ++ + ++ +++ products User interface quality ± + ++ +++

Winter 2009 5 Vol. 8, No 1

G8(1)Review-Bronswijk-v4.indd 5 11-3-2009 18:48:25 Defining gerontechnology

in either the person or his/her environment any gerontechnology research, design or en- will alter the end result (system output). A gineering project will fill in one cell of each systems approach takes into account the of the three matrices of Table 2. changing dynamics of person-environment interactions over time during which both Aging people and their technological environment For the industrialized world it is said that change20, with quality of life at advanced ages aging starts at about 10 or 12 years of age, as the desired result of the interplay between or just before reaching puberty, since from two interdependent variables – changes in that age on the probability of dying continu- technology and people. ally increases for the remaining life span and doubles every 7-10 years24. Some research- Designers and engineers have skills to create ers see even earlier declines in functionality. good products for people but must develop Small & Stapells25 report that normal hear- the additional skill to link products, environ- ing infants have much better 500-1000 Hz ments, systems and services to the changing auditory steady-state response thresholds aspirations, needs and capabilities of end than adults have. users of various age, gender, culture, health and wealth21. Note the continuity of needs With aging, variability increases both be- across the life span that technology may fulfill tween and within persons. Between-person by supporting activities and enhancing qual- variability increases because of the enor- ity of life (Table 1). Maintenance of health, mous variability of life experiences and age- autonomy, and independent functioning are associated increases in functional limitations key needs in older adulthood22,23. Geron- among persons who have the same calendar technology links human needs to the most age. Older people of the same calendar age appropriate products. Technologies that re- display wide differences in their ability to quire extensive learning to utilize, e.g., alter- cope with activities of daily living. Also the ing and creating visual and auditory images, rate at which that ability to cope changes, var- may be underutilized by older persons who ies for each individual. This rate of change is may believe that the benefits of the technol- frequently overlooked in tasks that rely on a ogy are not worth the effort required to mas- limited response time and accuracy, such as ter it (‘Temporal discounting’, Table 1) reacting in case of unexpected emergencies.

Gerontechnology concepts guiding R&D Technology generations Customizing technology to individual needs Gerontechnology’s outlook on aging focus- is within reach. Increasing cultural, econom- es on changes and diversity in needs and ic and age diversities requires us to develop aspirations. Following earlier literature, it systematic and sustainable approaches link- classifies the human life span into four func- ing technologies to individual and societal tional phases not defined by calendar age: needs. Gerontechnology provides this ap- (i) the formative phase (1st age; in industrial- proach. The value of gerontechnology for ized regions usually until about 25-30 years), R&D purposes derives from three core ideas: (ii) the main working-for-income and family- (i) aging and developments in technology formation phase (2nd age), (iii) the active re- are considered together when creating a tirement phase (3rd age), and (iv) the period gerontechnological application; (ii) theoreti- of frailty, dependence and rapid senescence cally speaking gerontechnology is the result (4th age)26,27. Since technologies used in the of cross-fertilization of core concepts of ger- formative period of a person remain his/her ontology and technology in a life-span ap- yardstick for technology-evaluation, differ- proach; and (iii) the deliberate provision of ent ‘technology generations’ emerge28. We technological options for specific daily activ- consider ‘technology generation’ a more ities of people. In fact, the main approach of general phenomenon than pertaining to just

Winter 2009 6 Vol. 8, No 1

G8(1)Review-Bronswijk-v4.indd 6 11-3-2009 18:48:25 Defining gerontechnology

Table 2. A tool for focusing gerontechnology research; The main approach of each Gerontechnology research, design or engineering project can be summarized by one cell in each of the three matrices; Adapted after Bouma et al.37, Bronswijk et al.38, Docampo Rama et al.28, Fozard20,39, Fozard et al.40, Graafmans et al.34, Mollenkopf and Fozard36, and Sackmann and Weymann29

a. Outlook: Age & Generation (2008, Industrialized world) Target population

k-

ence tive

d a ment age age age age

st th rd nd years tir e 1 Active 4 3 2 Frailty & ing phase Form re Main wor Depen

Mechanical products, hierarchical or-

ganization tion a Electro-mechanical products, hierar-

chical organization Menu driven products, layered software

(‘Microsoft generation’) Gaming software with proficiency le- vels, relational (non-hierarchical) organ- Technology gener ization at each level b. Science: Cross-fertilization of technology and gerontology disciplines Technology

a- ics n ics

ture

ment tion c m

e a ics ing t d

sign e (Bio)Physics (Bio)chemistry Archite Buil Inform Communic tion Mechatro Robo Ergono D Business manag Physiology

Nutrition

Psychology

Social psychology Sociology

Demographics Gerontology

Rehabilitation c. Engineering: Impact on application domains Application domain

i- ing

ance v

teem

ity s port l ing s s e - tion isure a Commun c Gover n Work Le Hou Daily li Mobi Tran Health Self Enrichment

Satisfaction Prevention

Engagement Compensation

Main goal Substitution Care support

Care organization

Winter 2009 7 Vol. 8, No 1

G8(1)Review-Bronswijk-v4.indd 7 11-3-2009 18:48:25 Defining gerontechnology

‘user interfaces’, for which its effects have be much smaller than the broad ones listed been well demonstrated29. in Table 2b: for instance, Human-Machine Interaction (HMI) is an aspect of ergonomics, The whole environment is currently much but is also a major and distinct engineering more filled with ever-changing technological discipline in its own right. products and services within financial reach than has ever been the case in earlier times, Although ethics and aesthetics are impor- wielding varying influences on the different tant issues in all (social) sciences mentioned, generations. Since different age cohorts use we have grouped them under social psy- different reference systems to evaluate new chology (ethics) and ergonomics (aesthetics). technologies, a person aged 20 in 2008 will Both could also be treated as independent never experience environmental change the disciplines because of their overwhelming way a person aged 60 in 2008 does. In addi- impact on gerontechnology activities. tion, age affects the perceived value of time. As people become older they see less time Engineers’ assignments ahead of them and they are consequently Gerontechnology recognizes four goals of less interested in benefits that will appear in technological intervention in combination the future30. Therefore, as age advances the with five domains of human daily activities maximum time required to learn to use a new, to support design and engineering (Table 2c). valuable product is necessarily shorter31. Most of these technologies are not limited to older adults. Again, it is clear that geron- The concept of the four ages combined with technology includes a large array of technol- technology generations connects human ag- ogies, limited only by the striving towards ing to environmental and personal change successful aging and social sustainability. over time and helps designers and engineers fit new technologies to the target population. The goals of gerontechnology fall within the Note that in the industrialized world of 2008 domain of public health, which involves ap- some combinations of age and generation plying science in the context of politics so do not exist, for instance, the mechanical as to ensure the best health for the greatest generation for the current 2nd age or main numbers and to reduce inequalities11. This working-for-income period (Table 2a). How- includes the prevention of the onset of dis- ever, in other societies a different picture ease by immunization, sanitation, nutrition may arise. The Indian or African farmer em- and other broad scale interventions (pri- ploying an oxen-drawn plough may well use mary prevention = prevention and engage- a cellular phone. Mechanical and software ment in gerontechnology), the management technology do exist side by side in many of disease, such as the delaying of chronic parts of the world, depending on culture conditions (secondary prevention = com- and economic development. pensation and substitution in gerontechnol- ogy), and the reduction in function decline Cross-fertilization (tertiary prevention = care support and care Gerontechnology has no scientific theory or organization in gerontechnology), whose ef- methodology of its own. Its theoretical base fectiveness was also demonstrated in a ran- is formed from the cross-fertilization of ger- domized study32. ontology (scientific study of aging) and tech- nology (engineering sciences) disciplines The four goals of intervention in gerontech- (Table 2b). It is the cross-fertilization that is nology may be further characterized as essential here. Most researchers, designers follows. or engineers were educated in a single disci- (i) Enrichment and satisfaction denote tech- pline and will thus need to collaborate with nologies for attaining the highest quality of the other disciplines. These disciplines may life at all three levels under (ii) to (iv).

Winter 2009 8 Vol. 8, No 1

G8(1)Review-Bronswijk-v4.indd 8 11-3-2009 18:48:25 Defining gerontechnology

(ii) Prevention and engagement concern physically restricted persons, machines that technology that delays or prevents develop- administer and monitor the use of medica- ment-associated physiological and behavio- tion, or equipment that provides information ral changes that restrict human functioning, about physiological or psychological func- such as accidents, or lifestyle and envi- tioning to a remote location. ronmental factors contributing to allergies, old-age depression, and other restrictions Conclusion that may be modified with technological In essence the gerontechnology domain en- interventions. compasses all technology applied to the full (iii) Compensation and substitution pertain human life span as far as it aims at increas- to technology that compensates for devel- ing quality of life in older age categories. To opment-associated losses in strength, per- do this gerontechnology takes into account ceptual-motor functioning or cognition. environmental and personal changes over (iv) Care support and care organization en- time and works interdisciplinarily with one compass technology used by professional or or more professionals from both technology volunteer caregivers to benefit persons with and gerontology33. restrictions, such as devices that lift or move

Acknowledgements 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.4017/gt.0000.00.00.000.00 The authors are grateful to the following col- 8. Bouma H, Graafmans JAM, editors. Geron- leagues for their inspiring and sharpening com- technology. Amsterdam: IOS; 1992 ments and additions: Neil Charness, Mauro 9. Graafmans JAM, Taipale V, Charness N, edi- Colombo, Anna Dickinson, Emilia L.C. van tors. Gerontechnology: A sustainable invest- Egmond-de Wilde De Ligny, Geoff Fernie, Han- ment in the future. Amsterdam: IOS; 1998 nele Hyppönen, Elisabeth Karol, Floris van Nes, 10. Pieper R, Vaarama M, Fozard JL, editors. Lawrence Normie and Claudia Oppenauer. Gerontechnology. Technology and aging: Starting into the third millennium. Aachen: References Shaker; 2002 1. ISG Council. ISG Mission statement. Geron- 11. WHO. Constitution of the World Health Or- technology;2008;7(4):341; doi:10.4017/ ganization. Geneva: World Health Organiza- gt.2008.07.04.003.00 tion; 1948; http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hist/of- 2. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Franco A, Sommer P, Baey- ficial_records/constitution.pdf; retrieved May ens JP, Jankowska E, Maggi E, Ponikowski P, 19, 2008 12. WHO. The World Health Report 1998. Life Ryś A, Szczerbińska K, Milewicz A. Euro- st pean silver paper on the future of health in the 21 century. A vision for all. http:// promotion and preventive actions, basic www.who.int/whr/1998/en/; retrieved May research, and clinical aspects of age-related 19, 2008 disease. Gerontechnology 2008;7(4):331-339; 13. WHO. Ottawa charter for health promotion. doi:10.4017/gt.2008.07.04.003.00 First International Conference on Health 3. Mackenbach JP. De positieve effecten van Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November 1986. medische zorg op de sterfte [Mortality reduc- WHO/HPR/HEP/95.1; www.who.int/hpr/ tion due to medical care]. In Ruwaard D, NPH/docs/ottawa_charter_hp.pdf; retrieved Kramers PNG, editors. Volksgezondheid Toe- May 19, 2008 komst Verkenning. De gezondheidstoestand 14. Fozard JL, Kearns, WD. Persuasive technolo- van de Nederlandse bevolking in de periode gies which change attitudes and behaviors 1950-2010. Den Haag: Sdu; pp 653-657 can support the ambitions and activities of 4. Rowe JW, Kahn RL. Successful aging. The older persons. In Yen G, Tuan P, editors. Pro- Gerontologist 1997;37(4):433-440 ceedings of the 2007 International Confer- 5. Havighurst RJ. Successful Aging. In Williams ence on Gerontic Technology and Service RH, Tibbitts C, Donahue W, editors. Process Management. Nan Tou: Nan Kai Institute of of Aging: Social and Psychological Perspec- Technology; 2007; pp1-10 tives. Volume 1. New York: Atherton; 1963; 15. Fozard JL. Applications to aging are helping pp 299-320 human factors and ergonomics grow up right. 6. Gilmer DF, Aldwin CM. Health, illness, and In Burdick DC, Kwon S, editors, Gerotechnol- optimal aging: biological and psychosocial ogy. New York: Springer; 2004; pp 257-269 perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003 16. Bouwhuis DG. Design for person-

Winter 2009 9 Vol. 8, No 1

G8(1)Review-Bronswijk-v4.indd 9 11-3-2009 18:48:26 Defining gerontechnology

environment interaction in older age: a 31. Melenhorst A-S. Making decisions about Gerontechnological perspective. Geron- future activities: The role of age and health. technology 2003;2(3):232-246; doi:10.4017/ Gerontechnology 2002;1(3):153–162; gt.2003.02.03.002.00 doi:10.4017/gt.2002.01.03.004.00 17. Coleman R. Improving the quality of life 32. Mann WC, Ottenbacher KJ, Fraas L, Tomita for older people by design. In Graafmans M, Granger CV. Effectiveness of assistive JAM, Taipale V, Charness N, editors. Geron- technology and environmental interventions technology: A sustainable investment in the in maintaining independence and reduc- future. Amsterdam: IOS; 1998; pp 74-83 ing home care costs for the frail elderly: A 18. Coleman R, Myerson J. Improving life quality randomized trial. Archives of Family Medi- by countering design exclusion. Geron- cine 8(3):210-217;1999; doi:10.1001/arch- technology 2001;1(2):88-102;doi:10.4017/ fami.8.3.210 gt.2001.01.02.002.00 33. Bronswijk, JEMH van, Fozard JL, Kearns WD, 19. Graafmans JAM, Brouwers A. Gerontechnol- Davison GC, Tuan P-C. Implementing geron- ogy, the modeling of normal aging. In Pro- technology. Gerontechnology 2008;7(3):325- ceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd 327; doi:10.4017/gt.2008.07.03.007.00 Annual meeting, Denver, CO, USA, 1989 34. Graafmans JAM, Fozard JL, Rietsema J, 20. Fozard JL. Impacts of technology interven- Berlo A van, Bouma H. Gerontechnology: tions on health and self-esteem. Geron- matching the technological environment to technology 2005;4(2):63-76; doi:10.4017/ the needs and capacities of the elderly. In gt.2005.04.02.002.00 Broekhuis K, Weikert C, Moraal J, Waard 21. Norman DA. The psychology of everyday D de, editors. Aging and human factors. things. New York: Basic Books; 1988 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergo- 22. Kane RL. The public health paradigm. In nomics Society / Europe Chapter. Groningen: Hickey T, Speers MA, Prochaska TR, editors. Traffic Research Center, Groningen Univer- Public health and aging. Baltimore: John sity; 1996; pp 19-30 Hopkins Press; 1997; pp 3-16 35. Leikas J, Saariluoma P. ‘Worth’ and mental 23. Chong AML, Ng SH, Woo J, Kwan AYH. contents in designing for ageing citizens’ Positive ageing: The views of middle-aged form of life. Gerontechnology 2008;7(3):305- and older adults in Hong Kong. Ageing and 318; doi:10.4017/gt.2008.07.03.005.00 Society 2006;26(2):243-265; doi:10.1017/ 36. Mollenkopf H, Fozard JL. Technology and the S0144686X05004228 good life: Challenges for current and future 24. Austad SN. Why we age: What science is generations of aging people. Annual Review of discovering about the body’s journey through Geriatrics and Gerontology 2004;23:250-279 life. New York: Wiley; 1997 37. Bouma H, Fozard JL, Bouwhuis DG, Taipale 25. Small SA, Stapells DR. Multiple auditory V. Gerontechnology in perspective. Geron- steady-state response thresholds to bone- technology 2007;6(4):190-216; doi:10.4017/ conduction stimuli in young infants with nor- gt.2007.06.04.003.00 mal hearing. Ear and Hearing 2006;27(3):219- 38. Bronswijk JEMH van, Bouma H, Fozard JL. 228; doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000215974.74293.b9 Technology for Quality of life: an enriched 26. Laslett P. A fresh map of life: The emergence taxonomy. Gerontechnology 2003;2(2):169- of the third age. London: Weidenfeld and 172; doi:10.4017/gt.2002.02.02.001.00 Nicolson; 1989 39. Fozard JL. Enabling environments for physical 27. Blaikie A. Ageing and popular culture. Cam- aging: A balance of preventive and compen- bridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997 satory interventions. In Schaie KW, Wahl 28. Docampo Rama M, Ridder H de, Bouma H-W, Mollenkopf H, Oswald F, editors. Ag- H. Technology generation and age in ing independently: Living arrangements and using layered user interfaces. Geron- mobility. New York: Springer; 2003; pp 31-45 technology 2001;1(1):25-40; doi:10.4017/ 40. Fozard JL, Graafmans JAM, Rietsema J, gt.2001.01.01.003.00 Bouma H, Berlo A van. Aging and ergonom- 29. Sackmann R, Weymann A. Die Technisierung ics: the challenges of individual differences des Alltags: Generationen und technische and environmental change. In Broekhuis K, Innovationen. Frankfurt: Campus; 1994 Weikert C, Moraal J, Waard D de, editors. 30. Carstensen LL. Evidence of a life-span theory Aging and human factors. Proceedings of the of socioemotional selectivity. Current Direc- Human Factors and Ergonomics Society / tions in Psychological Science 1996;4(5)151- Europe Chapter. Groningen: Traffic Research 156; doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512261 Center, Groningen University; 1996; pp 51-66

Winter 2009 10 Vol. 8, No 1

G8(1)Review-Bronswijk-v4.indd 10 11-3-2009 18:48:26