## 4 Discussion
### Influence of Prior Experience with Robots  
The rating of the system declined with each of the test sessions. This difference was the most pronounced with the robot-assisted health assessment. A possible explanation for this result is the novelty effect [19], as described in Section 1.1. The participants in session 3 regularly interact with a Pepper robot and are therefore much more experienced with the robot than the participants in the other sessions. The novelty of the robot may have worn off, leading to less excitement in interacting with it, thus also resulting in slightly lower UX evaluations. It needs to be considered, however, that session 3 had only three participants. The results are, therefore, not statistically significant, but rather exploratory in nature. Additionally, the KPI were very high in session 1, where the participants had greater difficulties with the devices and the completion rates of the health assessment were much lower. This also supports the explanation that the novelty effect may have led to more favorable results in sessions 1 and 2.  
In session 1, a total of five older users with previous experience with the robot Pepper and three without tested the system. The overall success rate of participants with experience  
Figure 7: The combined KPI results (N = 11) of the sessions with older adults, namely session 1 in residential care (N = 8) and session 3 in assisted living (N=3), are visualized. All combined KPIs are rated highly with values above 2, indicating an excellent UX of our health monitoring system among older adults.  
is at 83.2% considerably higher than the 66.0% achieved by inexperienced users. The difference between these user groups becomes even more apparent when considering the completion rates. Three out of five assessments were successfully completed by experienced users, while the same applies to only one assessment with an inexperienced user. It must be considered, that the users from session 1 have only interacted with the robot on very few occasions, therefore, the experience can not be seen as extensive. With the success rate increasing noticeably with only little prior experience, we conclude that it is easy for older adults to learn how to interact with the robot.  
Out of the participants in this study, group C had by far the most previous experience with the robot Pepper. Nevertheless, the success rate of session 3 differs only slightly from that in session 1--especially when considering the success rate, cleansed from the failed attempts. On the testing day, however, we repeatedly observed difficulties and delays in the robot's speech recognition, possibly caused by a slow internet connection. This is also reflected in the comparison of the system logs with the transcripts. The speech recognition seemed to fail more frequently, resulting in users having to repeat their input, false routing, and a reduced success rate. It is therefore likely that the success rate in session 3 would have been higher with a better connection. Finally, despite the described internet issues, the success and completion rates for session 3 with older adults were only slightly lower than in session 2 with younger expert users. This again indicates that older adults, especially those with prior experience with the robot, perform well when interacting with the robot.