Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 157–181 | Cite as

Are Robots Ready to Deliver Autism Interventions? A Comprehensive Review

  • Momotaz BegumEmail author
  • Richard W. Serna
  • Holly A. Yanco
Survey

Abstract

This article presents a review of the contemporary robotics research with respect to making robots and human–robot interaction (HRI) useful for autism intervention in clinical settings. Robotics research over the past decade has demonstrated that many children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) have a strong interest in robots and robot toys and can connect with a robot significantly better than with a human. Despite showing great promise, research in this direction has made minimal progress in advancing robots as clinically useful for ASD intervention. Moreover, the clinicians are generally not convinced about the potential of robots. A major reason behind this is that a vast majority of HRI studies on robot-mediated intervention (RMI) do not follow any standard research design and, consequently, the data produced by these studies is minimally appealing to the clinical community. In clinical research on ASD intervention, a systematic evaluation of the evidence found from a study is performed to determine the effectiveness of an experimental intervention (e.g., a RMI). An intervention that produces a stable positive effect is considered as an evidence-based practice (EBP) in autism. EBPs enable clinicians to choose the best available treatments for an individual with ASD. The ultimate goal of RMI, therefore, is to be considered as an EBP so that they can actually be used for treating autism. There are several criteria to measure the strength of evidence, and they are mostly geared toward rigorous research design. The research on RMI, therefore, needs to follow standard research design to be acceptable by the clinical community. This paper reviews the contemporary literature on robotics and autism to understand the status of RMI with respect to being an EBP in autism treatment. First, a set of guidelines is reported which is considered as a benchmark for research design in clinical research on ASD intervention and can easily be adopted in HRI studies on RMI. The existing literature on RMI is then reviewed with respect to these guidelines. We hope that the guidelines reported in this paper will help the robotics community to design user studies on RMI that meet clinical standards and thereby produce results that can lead RMI toward being considered as an EBP in autism. Note that the paper is exclusively focused on the role of robots in ASD intervention/therapy. Reviews on the use of robots in ASD diagnosis are beyond the scope of this paper.

Keywords

Robots HRI Autism spectrum disorders Therapeutic intervention 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (IIS-0905228 and IIS-1111125). Begum’s research has been funded by the National Science Foundation (CRII, EAGER) and IEEE-RAS SIGHT.

References

  1. 1.
    American Psychological Association (2001) Policy statement on evidence-based practice in psychology. http://www.apa.org/practice/ebpstatement.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015
  2. 2.
    Andreae H, Andreae P, Low J, Brown D (2014) A study of auti: a socially assistive robotic toy. In: Proceedings of the conference on interaction design and children. ACM, New York, p 245–248Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Begum M, Serna R, Kontak D, Allspaw J, Kuczynski J, Suarez J, Yanco H (2015) Measuring the efficacy of robots in autism therapy: How informative are standard HRI metrics? In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interactionGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bekele ET, Lahiri U, Swanson AR, Crittendon JA, Warren ZE, Sarkar N (2013) A step towards developing adaptive robot-mediated intervention architecture (ARIA) for children with autism. Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 21:289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bekele E, Crittendon JA, Swanson A, Sarkar N, Warren ZE (2014) Pilot clinical application of an adaptive robotic system for young children with autism. Autism 18:598–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bird G, Leighton J, Press C, Heyes C (2007) Intact automatic imitation of human and robot actions in autism spectrum disorders. Proc Biol Sci 274(1628):3027–3031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boccanfuso L, O’Kane JM (2010) Adaptive robot design with hand and face tracking for use in autism therapy. In: International conference on social robotics, p 265–274Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cabibihan JJ, Javed H, Ang M Jr, Aljunied SM (2013) Why robots? A survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. Int J Soc Robot 5(4):593–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaminade T, Fonseca DD, Rosset D, Lutscher E, Cheng G, Deruelle C (2012) fMRI study of young adults with autism interacting with a humanoid robot. In: International symposium on robot and human interactive communications, p 380–385Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Constantino JN, Gruber CP (2005) Social responsiveness scale manual. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles. http://www.wpspublish.com/app/. Accessed 3 Feb 2015
  12. 12.
    Constantino JN, Davis SA, Todd RD, Schindler MK, Gross MM (2003) Validation of a brief quantitative measure of autistic traits: comparison of the social responsiveness scale with the autism diagnostic interview-revised. J Autism Dev Disord 33(4):427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costa S, Soares F, Santos C, Ferreira MJ, Moreira F, Pereira AP, Cunha F (2011) An approach to promote social and communication behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorders: robot based intervention. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Atlanta, p 101–106Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costescu CA, Vanderborght B, David DO (2015) Reversal learning task in children with autism spectrum disorder: a robot-based approach. J Autism Dev Disord 45(11):3715–3725Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dautehhahn K, Werry I (2007) Towards interactive robotics in autism therapy. Pragmat Cogn 12:1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    David D, Matu S, David OA (2014) Robot-based psychotherapy: concepts development, state of the art, and new directions. Int J Cogn Ther 7(2):192–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diehl J, Schmitt L, Crowell CR, Villano M (2012) The clinical use of robots for children with autism spectrum disorders: a critical review. Res Autism Spectr Disord 6(1):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diehl J, Crowell CR, Villano M, Wier K, Tang K, Riek L (2014) Clinical applications of robots in autism spectrum disorder diagnosis and treatment. In: A comprehensive guide to autism. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duquette A, Michaud F, Mercier H (2008) Exploring the use of a mobile robot as an imitation agent with children with low-functioning autism. Auton Robots 24(1):147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feil-Seifer J, Mataric MJ (2008) B3IA: a control architecture for autonomous robot-assisted behavior intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. In: International conference on human–robot interaction, p 328–333Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feil-Seifer J, Mataric MJ (2010) Using proxemics to evaluate human–robot interaction. In: International conference on human–robot interaction, p 143–144Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fujimoto I, Matsumoto T, Silva PRSD, Kobayashi M, Higashi M (2011) Mimicking and evaluating human motion to improve the imitation skill of children with autism through a robot. Int J Soc Robot 3:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Giannopulu I (2013) Multimodal cognitive nonverbal and verbal interactions: the neurorehabilitation of autistic children via mobile toy robots. Int J Adv Life Sci 5(3, 4):214–222Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goodrich MA, Colton M, Brinton B, Fujiki M, Atherton JA, Ricks D, Maxfield MH, Acerson A (2012) Incorporating a robot into an autism therapy team. IEEE Intell Syst Mag 27(2):52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greczek J, Kaszubski E, Atrash A, Matari M (2014) Graded cueing feedback in robot-mediated imitation practice for children with autism spectrum disorders. In: Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, p 561–566Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grynszpan O, Weiss PL, Perez-Diaz F, Gal E (2014) Innovative technology-based interventions for autism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis. Autism 18:346–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harris SL, Delmolino L (2002) Applied behavior analysis: its application in the treatment of autism and related disorders in young children. Infants Young Child 14:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Horner RH, Carr EG, Halle J, McGee G, Odom S, Wolery M (2005) The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Except Child 71:165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huskens B, Verschuur R, Gillesen J, Didden R, Barakova E (2013) Promoting question-asking in school-aged children with autism spectrum disorders: effectiveness of a robot intervention compared to a human–trainer intervention. Dev Neurorehabil 16:345–356Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jordan K, King M, Hellersteth S, Wiren A, Mulligan H (2012) Robotic technology for teaching adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a feasibility study. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on rehabilitation engineering and assistive technology. ACM, Singapore, p 24:1–24:4Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kazdin AE (2008) Evidence-based treatment and practice: new opportunities to bridge clinical research and practice, enhance the knowledge base, and improve patient care. Am Psychol 63:146–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kelley JF (1984) An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Trans Inf Syst 2(1):26–41MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim ES, Scassellati B (2012) Bridging the research gap: making HRI useful to individuals with autism. Hum Robot Interact 1(1):26–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim ES, Berkovits LD, Bernier EP, Leyzberg D, Shic F, Paul R, Scassellati B (2013) Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. Autism Dev Disord 43:1038–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yasuda Y (2007) Children–robot interaction: a pilot study in autism therapy. Prog Brain Res 164:385–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee J, Takehashi H, Nagai C, Obinata G, Stefanov D (2012) Which robot features can stimulate better responses from children with autism in robot-assisted therapy? Adv Robot Syst 9:1–6Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lord C, Rutter M, Goode S, Heemsbergen J, Jordan H, Mawhood L, Schopler E (1989) Autism diagnostic observation schedule: a standardized observation of communicative and social behavior. J Autism Dev Disord 19:185–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lord C, Rutter M, DiLavore P, Risi S (2001) Autism diagnostic observation schedule (ADOS) manual. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles. http://www.wpspublish.com/app/. Accessed 3 Feb 2015
  39. 39.
    MAG Initiative (2012) Autism spectrum disorders: guide to evidence based interventions. http://autismguidelines.dmh.mo.gov/documents/Interventions.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015
  40. 40.
    Mesibov G, Shea V (2011) Evidence-based practices and autism. Autism 15:114–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mesibov G, Shea V, Schopler E (2005) The TEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nathan PE, Gorman JM (2007) A guide to treatments that work, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Odom SL (2013) Technology-aided instruction and intervention (TAII) fact sheet. The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group, Chapel Hill. http://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/sites/autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/files/2014-EBP-Report.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015
  44. 44.
    Odom SL, Brantlinger E, Gersten R, Horner RD, Thompson B, Harris K (2004) Quality indicators for research in special education and guidelines for evidence-based practices: executive summary. Council for Exceptional Children Division for Research, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Odom S, Collet-Klingenberg L, Rogers S, Hatton D (2010) Evidence-based practices in interventions for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Prev School Fail 54:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pennington R, Saadatzi MN, Welch KC, Scott R (2014) Using robot-assisted instruction to teach students with intellectual disabilities to use personal narrative in text messages. J Spec Educ Technol 29(4):4958Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pierno A, Mari M, Lusher D, Castiello U (2008) Robotic movement elicits visuomotor priming in children with autism. Neuropsychologia 31:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pioggia G, Sica ML, Ferro M, Igliozzi R, Muratori F, Ahluwalia A, Rossi DD (2007) Human–robot interaction in autism: face, an android-based social therapy. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Jeju, p 605–612Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pop CA, Petrule A, Pintea S, Peca A, Simut R, Vanderborght B, David DO (2013a) Imitation and social behaviors of children with ASD in interaction with robonova. A series of single case experiments. Transylv J Psychol 14(1):71–93Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pop CA, Simut RE, Pintea S, Saldien J, Rusu AS, Vanderfaeillie J, David DO, Lefeber D, Vanderborght B (2013b) Social robots vs. computer display: Does the way social stories are delivered make a difference for their effectiveness on ASD children? Educ Comput Res 49(3):381–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Reed FD, Hyman SR, Hirst JM (2011) Applications of technology to teach social skills to children with autism. Dev Neurorehabil 5:1003–1010Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Reichow B, Volkmar FR, Cicchetti DV (2008) Method for evaluating and determining evidence-based practices in autism. Autism Dev Disord 38:1311–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Riek LD (2012) Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Int J Hum Robot Interact 1(1):119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Robins B, Dautenhahn K (2014) Tactile interactions with a humanoid robot: novel play scenario implementations with children with autism. Int J Soc Robot 6:397–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Robins B, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2005) Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills. Univers Access Inf Soc 4:105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Dubowski J (2006) Does appearance matter in the interaction of children with autism with a humanoid robot? Interact Stud 7:479–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rogers SJ, Dawson G (2012) Play and engagement in early autism: the early start Denver model. www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/edsl/esdm/training.html. Accessed 3 Feb 2015
  58. 58.
    Rogers SJ, Vismara LA (2008) Evidence-based comprehensive treatments for early autism. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 37:8–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rutter M, Bailey A, Lord C, Berument SK (2003) Social communication questionnaire. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles. http://www.wpspublish.com/app/. Accessed 3 Feb 2015
  60. 60.
    Scassellati B (2005) Quantitative metrics of social response for autism diagnosis. In: International workshop on robots and human interactive communication, p 585–590Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Scassellati B, Admoni H, Mataric M (2012) Robots for use in autism research. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Schopler E, Reichler RJ, Renner BR (1988) The childhood autism rating scale (CARS) manual. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles. http://www.wpspublish.com/app/. Accessed 3 Feb 2015
  63. 63.
    Shamsuddin S, Yussof H, Ismail L, Hanapiah FA, Mohamed S, Piah HA, Zahair N (2012) Initial response in HRI—a case study on evaluation of child with autism spectrum disorders interacting with a humanoid robot NAO. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on robotics and intelligent sensors. Elsevier, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, p 1448–1455Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Srinivasan S, Lynch KA, Bubela DJ (2013) Effect of interactions between a child and a robot on the imitation and praxis performance of typically developing children and a child with autism: a preliminary study. Percept Motor Skills Phys Dev Meas 116(3):885–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tapus A, Peca A, Aly A, Pop C, Jisa L, Pintea S, Rusu AS, David DO (2012) Children with autism social engagement in interaction with NAO, an imitative robot. Interact Stud 13(3):315–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Vanderborght B, Simut R, Saldien J, Pop C, Rusu AS, Pintea S, Lefeber D, David DO (2012) Using the social robot probo as a social story telling agent for children with ASD. Interact Stud 13:348–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wainer J, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F, Dautenhahn K (2014) Using the humanoid robot KASPAR to autonomously play triadic games and facilitate collaborative play among children with autism. Auton Ment Dev 6(3):183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wilczynski S, Green G, Ricciardi J, Boyd B, Hume A, Ladd M, Odom S, Rue H (2009) National standards report: The national standards project addressing the need for evidence-based practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorders. National Autism Center. http://www.nationalautismcenter.org/affiliates/reports.php. Accessed 3 Feb 2015
  69. 69.
    Wong C, Odom S, Hume K, Cox AW, Fettig A, Kucharczyk S, Brock ME, Plavnick JB, Fleury VP, Schultz TR (2014) Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group, Chapel Hill. http://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/sites/autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/files/2014-EBP-Report.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Momotaz Begum
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard W. Serna
    • 2
  • Holly A. Yanco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA

Personalised recommendations