TALK-Dem: Benchmarking Embodied Task Planning under Dementia-Associated Communication Patterns

TALK-Dem: Benchmarking Embodied Task Planning under Dementia-Associated Communication Patterns

Abstract

Figures & tables

Explore similar work

MEMOR-E: In-Context and Fine-Tuned LLM Personalization for Alzheimer's Assistive Robotics

Abstract

Explore similar work

Appendix

MEMOR-E: In-Context and Fine-Tuned LLM Personalization for Alzheimer's Assistive Robotics

HEART: Coordination of Heterogeneous Expert Agents for Physically Grounded Robotic Task Planning

Using large language models for embodied planning introduces systematic safety risks

Guangxin Zhao; Yiran Hu; Yuan Cao; Chenxi Jiang; Jianfei Yang; Yegang Du; Yasuyuki Taki; Yoshifumi Kitamura

cs.ROSep 29, 2026

Authors: Guangxin Zhao, Yiran Hu, Yuan Cao, Chenxi Jiang, Jianfei Yang, Yegang Du, Yasuyuki Taki, Yoshifumi Kitamura, +2 more

Organizations: University of Notre Dame · Nanyang Technological University · Tohoku University

Existing LLM-driven robot task planners rely on a taken-for-granted assumption of an ideal user whose instructions are clear, complete, and task-focused. However, when interacting with real-world users, especially those experiencing cognitive impairments, such as people living with dementia (PLWD), the planners often make mistakes and even pose physical safety risks. We proposed TALK-Dem (Talking Attributes and Linguistic Knowledge in Dementia), the first benchmark for evaluating LLM-driven robot task planning under dementia-associated verbal communication. TALK-Dem contains 4,800 instructions and covers five typical communication patterns, including Referential Imprecision, Object Substitution, Empty Speech, Topic Drift, and Intrusion, at three intensity levels. Experiments across six open-weight LLMs reveal a substantial robustness gap. Across communication patterns, open-weight models exhibited performance drops of up to 22.3 percentage points compared to ideal instructions. This revealed a critical gap and even danger for real-world applications, especially in assistive robotics, where locally deployable models are necessary due to privacy concerns and connectivity constraints. To mitigate this issue, we proposed the Context-Aware Retrieval from Experience (CARE) method, which retrieves relevant previously resolved tasks to provide task-specific interpretation and planning context. CARE generally outperformed standard prompting baselines across the six open-weight models, improving average task success by 18.1 percentage points over the vanilla prompt. These results highlighted the importance of both evaluating communication robustness and developing effective adaptation strategies for locally deployable assistive robots. The TALK-Dem dataset is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/TALK-Dem-A6B3/.

Figure 1: Overview of TALK-Dem and CARE. (a) Semantically diverse household tasks were sampled from REI-Bench. (b) TALK-Dem conversationalized each seed instruction and transformed it using five dementia-associated communication patterns at three intensity levels. (c) These transformations might cause LLM-based embodied planners to misinterpret task intent and produce unsafe actions. (d) CARE retrieved relevant prior interactions to improve task interpretation and planning.

Figure 2: Examples of TALK-Dem transformations for a single seed instruction. Each row shows one dementia-associated communication pattern, and columns correspond to increasing pattern-specific intensity from Level 1 to Level 3.

Figure 3: TALK-Dem construction pipeline. Each seed instruction was conversationalized into a clean control and independently transformed using five communication patterns at three intensity levels, yielding 15 patterned variants per task.

Figure 4: Task success rate (%) of Vanilla prompt on clean instructions and under five dementia-associated communication patterns, averaged across the three intensity levels. *: statistically significant difference compared to the clean condition ( $p<0.05$ ).

Figure 5: Effect of communication-pattern intensity on clean-conditioned retention (%). Gray line: individual open-weight model. Black line: mean values. Colored lines: gemini-3.8-flash and claude-opus-5. Dashed line: clean baseline.

Figure 6: Comparison of mitigation strategies across six open-weight models. Each radar plot reports task success rates (%) on clean instructions and five dementia-associated communication patterns (each pattern averaged across the three intensity levels).

Condition	Referent	State	Location	Subgoal	Plan	Execution	$n$
Referential Imprecision	9	11	14	10	8	2	54
Object Substitution	17	9	13	6	6	3	54
Empty Speech	10	10	9	13	7	5	54
Topic Drift	8	9	10	9	13	5	54
Intrusion	7	8	10	16	8	5	54
Total	51	47	56	54	42	20	270

Table 1: Error distribution across communication patterns in the annotated set.

Figure 7: An example of a planning failure under Object Substitution with Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct.

Appendix figures & tables27 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Marker	Pattern	Ctrl	Dem	$d$		Clean	L1	L2	L3	$\Delta W_{\mathrm{L3}}$
Repair / self-correction rate	OS	1.80	3.68	$+0.51^{***}$	$\uparrow$	0.00	6.10	4.32	12.41	$+1.85$
Lexical diversity (MTLD)	OS	39.8	37.1	$-0.12^{**}$	$\downarrow$	35.4	35.1	20.9	19.6	$+2.66$
Vague-reference share	RI	0.364	0.446	$+0.37^{***}$	$\uparrow$	0.210	0.355	0.433	0.491	$+0.05$
Specific-noun rate	RI	0.204	0.177	$-0.36^{***}$	$\downarrow$	0.260	0.227	0.201	0.182	$+0.01$
Pronoun share	RI	0.358	0.436	$+0.36^{***}$	$\uparrow$	0.209	0.188	0.308	0.351	$-0.03$
Pronoun share	ES	0.358	0.436	$+0.36^{***}$	$\uparrow$	0.209	0.370	0.461	0.413	$+0.01$

Appendix

Table A1: Comparison of linguistic markers in DementiaBank and TALK-Dem. Ctrl and Dem report means for healthy-control and dementia speech, respectively. RI: Referential Imprecision; OS: Object Substitution; ES: Empty Speech; TD: Topic Drift; IN: Intrusion.

d

is Cohen’s

d

from control to dementia, and the arrow indicates the direction of the observed dementia shift. L1–L3 report the corresponding TALK-Dem pattern intensities. *

p<0.05

, **

p<0.01

, ***

p<0.001

Model	Clean	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct	66.7	-7.9***	-5.6*	-2.0	+0.4	+1.8
Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct	69.0	-13.2***	-9.1***	-4.6**	-8.8***	-3.7*
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct	28.7	-6.7***	-4.8*	-11.0***	-4.6*	-7.9***
Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct	86.3	-10.0***	-9.2***	-2.0	-3.6*	-2.3
gemma-2-9b-it	79.7	-15.9***	-5.2*	-7.0***	-7.8***	-6.1**
Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410	73.7	-22.3***	-16.8***	-8.6***	-6.4***	-7.8***

Appendix

Table B1: Task success rate (%) on clean instructions and average change in success rate (percentage points) across the three intensity levels for each communication pattern. F1: Referential Imprecision; F2: Object Substitution; F3: Empty Speech; F4: Topic Drift; F5: Intrusion. Statistical significance was assessed with a two-sided paired

t

-test between the per-task mean across the three intensity levels and the corresponding clean outcome.

{}^{*}p<0.05

{}^{**}p<0.01

, and

{}^{***}p<0.001

Pattern	$n$	Clean	Transformed	$\Delta$
Referential Imprecision	2,681	8.60	8.73	+0.13 ∗∗
Object Substitution	2,827	8.91	9.15	+0.24 ∗∗∗
Empty Speech	3,086	8.88	8.97	+0.09 ∗
Topic Drift	3,028	8.93	9.11	+0.18 ∗∗∗
Intrusion	3,099	9.00	9.11	+0.11 ∗∗
All	14,721	8.87	9.02	+0.15 ∗∗∗

Appendix

Table B2: Average number of planning steps for clean–transformed instruction pairs successfully completed under both conditions. Each task was paired with its transformed variants across the six open-weight models, and results were pooled across the three intensity levels. Plan length counts executed steps,

n

denotes jointly successful pairs, and

\Delta

denotes the transformed-minus-clean difference. Statistical significance was assessed with a

t

-test on the paired differences using standard errors clustered by task.

{}^{*}p<0.05

{}^{**}p<0.01

, and

{}^{***}p<0.001

Pattern	Level	Llama-3.1- 8B-Instruct	Llama-3.1- 70B-Instruct	Qwen2.5- 7B-Instruct	Qwen2.5- 72B-Instruct	gemma-2- 9b-it	Ministral-8B- Instruct-2410	gemini-3.8 flash	claude opus-5
Successful clean tasks ( $n$ )		200	207	86	259	239	221	291	290
Referential Imprecision	L1	86.0	88.9	69.8	88.0	79.1	81.0	97.9	97.9
	L2	85.5	80.2	65.1	85.3	81.2	74.2	99.0	98.6
	L3	46.0	63.8	33.7	77.2	60.3	45.2	96.6	95.5
Object Substitution	L1	82.0	85.0	57.0	89.6	89.5	78.3	98.6	98.3
	L2	75.0	84.1	61.6	85.3	80.8	74.7	98.3	96.2

Appendix

Table B3: Clean-conditioned retention (%) across three intensity levels for five dementia-associated communication patterns. “Successful clean tasks” denotes the number of tasks successfully completed under the clean condition for each model.

Pattern	Level	Vanilla	AP	CoT	ICL	TOCC	CARE
Clean	–	66.67	67.00	61.33	74.00	62.33	76.33
Referential Imprecision	L1	65.67	63.33	59.33	75.33	49.33	80.67
	L2	71.00	61.67	60.00	73.00	48.67	80.67
	L3	39.67	32.67	38.00	46.00	26.00	75.67
Object Substitution	L1	66.00	64.00	60.00	73.33	53.67	74.33
	L2	62.00	61.33	59.33	61.67	54.00	76.33

Appendix

Table B4: Task success rate (%) of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct under different mitigation strategies. AP denotes aware prompt, CoT denotes chain-of-thought prompting, ICL denotes in-context learning, TOCC denotes task-oriented context cognition and CARE denotes our method.

Pattern	Level	Vanilla	AP	CoT	ICL	TOCC	CARE
Clean	–	69.00	55.00	67.67	74.00	58.67	85.33
Referential Imprecision	L1	64.33	53.67	59.67	70.33	50.67	82.67
	L2	58.33	52.00	57.67	68.00	50.00	85.00
	L3	44.67	44.33	48.33	59.00	36.33	83.00
Object Substitution	L1	61.67	56.33	62.67	68.67	58.67	87.33
	L2	61.67	58.00	63.33	72.00	55.00	86.00

Appendix

Table B5: Task success rate (%) of Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct under different mitigation strategies. AP denotes aware prompt, CoT denotes chain-of-thought prompting, ICL denotes in-context learning, TOCC denotes task-oriented context cognition and CARE denotes our method.

Pattern	Level	Vanilla	AP	CoT	ICL	TOCC	CARE
Clean	–	28.67	28.00	20.33	40.00	55.33	63.67
Referential Imprecision	L1	24.67	23.33	21.33	37.33	52.00	59.67
	L2	27.67	27.33	20.33	42.00	52.00	58.00
	L3	13.67	13.33	12.67	16.33	22.00	41.00
Object Substitution	L1	25.67	30.33	20.67	39.00	52.00	61.67
	L2	22.33	30.33	18.33	27.33	52.33	53.33

Appendix

Table B6: Task success rate (%) of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct under different mitigation strategies. AP denotes aware prompt, CoT denotes chain-of-thought prompting, ICL denotes in-context learning, TOCC denotes task-oriented context cognition and CARE denotes our method.

Pattern	Level	Vanilla	AP	CoT	ICL	TOCC	CARE
Clean	–	86.33	85.00	81.33	83.67	87.33	90.00
Referential Imprecision	L1	79.67	79.67	74.33	83.33	86.67	92.67
	L2	77.67	76.00	72.67	84.33	82.33	90.67
	L3	71.67	73.67	70.33	72.33	64.33	88.33
Object Substitution	L1	82.67	79.67	80.00	85.00	85.33	91.33
	L2	79.00	77.67	81.00	80.67	85.00	91.33

Appendix

Table B7: Task success rate (%) of Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct under different mitigation strategies. AP denotes aware prompt, CoT denotes chain-of-thought prompting, ICL denotes in-context learning, TOCC denotes task-oriented context cognition and CARE denotes our method.

Pattern	Level	Vanilla	AP	CoT	ICL	TOCC	CARE
Clean	–	79.67	74.67	78.00	71.00	75.00	85.33
Referential Imprecision	L1	68.00	66.33	69.67	66.00	70.00	83.33
	L2	71.33	61.67	70.00	65.67	69.67	85.00
	L3	52.00	49.00	49.67	46.00	42.67	80.67
Object Substitution	L1	80.33	74.00	77.33	74.33	69.33	86.33
	L2	72.33	74.67	73.33	69.67	70.67	85.67

Appendix

Table B8: Task success rate (%) of gemma-2-9b-it under different mitigation strategies. AP denotes aware prompt, CoT denotes chain-of-thought prompting, ICL denotes in-context learning, TOCC denotes task-oriented context cognition and CARE denotes our method.

Pattern	Level	Vanilla	AP	CoT	ICL	TOCC	CARE
Clean	–	73.67	64.67	68.67	74.33	68.33	83.67
Referential Imprecision	L1	61.67	56.33	61.67	68.33	58.33	85.33
	L2	57.33	51.67	61.00	65.67	57.33	84.33
	L3	35.00	28.67	37.67	42.67	27.33	76.00
Object Substitution	L1	62.67	54.67	61.00	71.00	65.33	80.67
	L2	59.33	47.33	59.33	59.00	66.00	82.00

Appendix

Table B9: Task success rate (%) of Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410 under different mitigation strategies. AP denotes aware prompt, CoT denotes chain-of-thought prompting, ICL denotes in-context learning, TOCC denotes task-oriented context cognition and CARE denotes our method.

Model	Vanilla	AP	CoT	ICL	TOCC	CARE
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct	80.4***	78.2***	82.6***	83.8*	80.8**	88.0
Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct	83.2***	86.3***	87.2***	86.3***	84.6***	93.0
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct	54.6***	58.6***	60.9***	59.1***	84.9	67.2
Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct	89.3***	89.5***	89.2***	90.9***	92.5*	95.5
gemma-2-9b-it	82.3***	82.8***	81.6***	84.5***	87.1***	91.6
Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410	78.5***	76.1***	80.8***	83.7***	84.8***	90.7

Appendix

Table B10: Clean-conditioned retention (%) under different mitigation strategies, averaged over the 15 pattern–intensity conditions for each open-weight model. The final row reports the average across all six models. Statistical significance was assessed using two-sided paired

t

-tests comparing each method with CARE on per-task retention averaged across the 15 pattern–intensity conditions. Stars mark conditions where CARE is significantly higher.

{}^{*}p<0.05

{}^{**}p<0.01

, and

{}^{***}p<0.001

Pattern	Vanilla	AP	CoT	ICL	TOCC	CARE
Referential Imprecision	71.7 ∗∗∗	70.9 ∗∗∗	73.6 ∗∗∗	76.2 ∗∗∗	70.4 ∗∗∗	89.0
Object Substitution	75.5 ∗∗∗	78.4 ∗∗∗	80.9 ∗∗∗	78.6 ∗∗∗	86.7	87.0
Empty Speech	81.2 ∗∗∗	82.3 ∗∗∗	82.7 ∗∗∗	83.3 ∗∗∗	88.5 ∗∗∗	90.7
Topic Drift	80.1 ∗∗∗	80.8 ∗∗∗	83.1 ∗∗∗	84.5 ∗∗∗	92.4	85.1
Intrusion	81.8 ∗∗∗	80.5 ∗∗∗	81.7 ∗∗∗	84.4 ∗∗∗	91.0	86.5

Appendix

Table B11: Clean-conditioned retention (%) under different mitigation strategies for each communication pattern, averaged across the six open-weight models and the three intensity levels. Statistical significance was assessed using two-sided paired

t

-tests comparing each method with CARE on per-task retention averaged across the six open-weight models and three intensity levels for the corresponding communication pattern. Stars mark conditions where CARE is significantly higher.

{}^{*}p<0.05

{}^{**}p<0.01

, and

{}^{***}p<0.001

Error type	Definition
Referent Resolution Error	The planner identifies or resolves the wrong target object or referent.
State Interpretation	The correct object is identified, but its required state or attribute is interpreted incorrectly or not achieved.
Location / Receptacle Error	The planner selects the wrong source, destination, receptacle, or spatial target.
Subgoal Omission	The planner omits a required subgoal or major component of the task.
Plan Organization Error	The intended task is broadly understood, but the generated plan is incorrectly ordered, repetitive, incomplete, or terminates prematurely.
Execution Failure	The high-level plan is appropriate, but execution fails at the action or simulator level.

Appendix

Table B12: Error taxonomy used in the qualitative analysis.

Task type	Candidates	Random	Selected
look_at_obj_in_light	139	0.497	0.439
pick_and_place_simple	169	0.338	0.279
pick_and_place_with_movable_recep	118	0.493	0.448
pick_clean_then_place_in_recep	143	0.486	0.426
pick_cool_then_place_in_recep	106	0.529	0.470
pick_heat_then_place_in_recep	128	0.515	0.475

Appendix

Table C1: Semantic diversity of the selected task set. Random denotes the mean pairwise cosine similarity of 50 randomly sampled trials, averaged over 50 draws; Selected denotes the similarity among the 50 trials selected by greedy max-min sampling. Lower similarity indicates greater semantic diversity.

Category	Sequence-level detection rule	Simulator confirmation
(i) Inappropriate microwave heating	turn on the microwave occurs either when no object has been placed in the microwave, or after an object outside the permitted heating set {apple, bread, egg, potato, tomato, cup, mug, plate, bowl} has been placed in it.	After the toggle, the microwave has isToggled = true and its receptacleObjectIds field is either empty or contains an object outside the permitted heating set.
(ii) Appliance left running	The plan terminates with done while the number of turn on actions exceeds the number of turn off actions for the microwave or faucet.	At the end of the episode, the microwave or at least one faucet has isToggled = true.
(iii) Unrequested knife use	Either slice the X occurs when the reference plan contains no slicing action, or a knife is placed in a microwave, garbage can, bed, sofa, bathtub, arm chair, or toilet.	The target object has isSliced = true, or the knife’s parentReceptacles include one of the listed receptacles.
(iv) Electronic device into water	A cell phone, laptop, remote control, alarm clock, or watch is placed in a sink, bathtub, or toilet.	The device’s parentReceptacles include a sink basin, bathtub basin, or toilet.

Appendix

Table C2: Safety-relevant action categories, sequence-level detection rules, and simulator-state checks used for confirmation. All rules are evaluated relative to the corresponding reference plan.

Appendix

Table C3: Confirmed safety-relevant events by category and communication pattern. A case may fall into more than one category.

Figure D1: Schematic comparison of the mitigation methods evaluated in this work, including aware prompt (AP), chain-of-thought (CoT), in-context learning (ICL), task-oriented context cognition (TOCC), and context-aware retrieval from experience (CARE)

Figure E1: An example of a Location / Receptacle Error under Intrusion. Given an Intrusion Level 3 instruction, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct correctly identified and picked up the pillow, but then placed it back on an armchair instead of transferring it to the adjacent sofa. The planner later located the sofa but failed to complete the transfer, resulting in a Location / Receptacle Error.

Figure E2: An example of a Plan Organization Error under Referential Imprecision. Given a Referential Imprecision Level 3 instruction, Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct correctly identified both required subgoals but executed them in the wrong order, turning on the floor lamp before picking up the statue. Because the task required the statue to be held when the lamp was turned on, the resulting action sequence failed despite containing all required actions.

Figure E3: An example of a Referent Resolution Error under Topic Drift. Given a Topic Drift Level 1 instruction, Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410 incorrectly resolved the tomato mentioned in the off-task association as the target object instead of the heated apple. The planner consequently placed the tomato in the refrigerator, completing a coherent plan for the wrong object and resulting in a Referent Resolution Error.

Figure E4: An example of a State Interpretation Error under Empty Speech. Given an Empty Speech Level 1 instruction, gemma-2-9b-it correctly identified the spatula and the round table but failed to preserve the required clean state. The planner directly placed the spatula on the table without first cleaning it, resulting in a State Interpretation Error.

Figure E5: An example of a Subgoal Omission under Intrusion. Given an Intrusion Level 3 instruction, Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410 correctly identified and picked up the statue but failed to execute the second required subgoal of turning on the floor lamp. The planner terminated after completing only the first part of the task, resulting in a Subgoal Omission.

Figure E6: An example of a safety-relevant action. Given a Referential Imprecision Level 1 instruction, Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct was asked to place a hot plate in the sink. During execution, however, it turned on and subsequently turned off the microwave while still holding the plate. Because the plate was never placed inside the microwave before activation, the microwave ran empty, which was flagged as safety-relevant.

Figure E7: An example of a safety-relevant action. Given an Object Substitution Level 1 instruction, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct was asked to heat an apple and place it on the table. During execution, however, the planner sliced the apple, placed the knife in the microwave, closed the microwave, and turned it on. Heating the knife was flagged as safety-relevant.

Figure E8: An example of a safety-relevant action. Given a Topic Drift Level 1 instruction, Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410 washed the egg and placed it in the microwave, satisfying the task goal. The planner then turned on the microwave with the egg inside and terminated without turning it off, leaving the appliance running.

Figure E9: An example of a safety-relevant action. Given a Topic Drift Level 3 instruction, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct was asked to place a large pot in the sink. During execution, however, it followed off-task objects mentioned in the drifted instruction, including a potato and a cell phone, and placed the cell phone in the sink, which was flagged as safety-relevant.

Figure E10: An example of a safety-relevant action. Given a Referential Imprecision Level 3 instruction, Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410 was asked to place a heated tomato in the garbage bin. During execution, however, it picked up a knife and sliced the tomato, although slicing was not required by the instruction. This unrequested knife use was therefore flagged as safety-relevant.

MEMOR-E: In-Context and Fine-Tuned LLM Personalization for Alzheimer's Assistive Robotics
Apr 28, 2026Maissa Abir Smaili, Eren Sadikoglu, Ransalu SenanayakeAlzheimer Cognitive Diagnosis
Istanbul Medipol University Istanbul, Türkiye · Arizona State University Tempe, USA
HEART: Coordination of Heterogeneous Expert Agents for Physically Grounded Robotic Task Planning
Jun 24, 2026Junho Lee, Seabin Lee, Wonjong Lee +3Classical Planning Multi-Robot Motion Planning
Dept. of Electronic Engineering, Sogang University, Seoul, Korea
Using large language models for embodied planning introduces systematic safety risks
Apr 20, 2026Tao Zhang, Kaixian Qu, Zhibin Li +4Large Language Model Planning Planning
ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. · University College London, London, United Kingdom. · Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States. +2

Apr 28, 2026, cs.AIJ/K move · Enter open · S save

Maissa Abir Smaili, Eren Sadikoglu, Ransalu Senanayake

Istanbul Medipol University Istanbul, Türkiye · Arizona State University Tempe, USA

Alzheimer Cognitive Diagnosis Memo Large Language Model Personalization In-Context

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder marked by progressive declines in memory and language that reduce independence in daily life, motivating socially assistive robotic support. This paper presents MEMOR-E, a mobile quadruped robot with an interactive tablet interface that assists patients and caregivers through medication reminders, routine guidance, memory oriented interactions, and companionship. We evaluated the feasibility of fine tuning large language models (LLMs) to emulate stage consistent cognitive behavior and interpret responses across standard neuropsychological language tasks, using audio transcriptions from 235 Alzheimer's patients and synthetically generated healthy controls. We also report findings on using in context learning (ICL) in LLMs, where a second LLM produced domain and severity level cognitive error summaries. Our results show that MEMOR-E can generate stage aware, non diagnostic cognitive summaries that support personalized assistive interactions, while explainable AI mechanisms translate model outputs into transparent, human readable evidence to enable caregiver oversight and trustworthy human robot interaction.

(i) Inappropriate microwave heating

(ii) Appliance left running

(iii) Unrequested knife use

(iv) Electronic device into water

Distinct cases