Advertisement

Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 273–285 | Cite as

Using a Humanoid Robot as a Complement to Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: a Pilot Study

  • Lorenzo DesideriEmail author
  • Marco Negrini
  • Massimiliano Malavasi
  • Daniela Tanzini
  • Aziz Rouame
  • Maria Cristina Cutrone
  • Paola Bonifacci
  • Evert-Jan Hoogerwerf
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Emerging evidence documents that social robots may increase motivation in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) when participating in educational activities. This study reports on the results of a pilot test conducted in a public child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) aimed at exploring whether a social robot could increase engagement and learning achievement in two 9-year-old male children with ASD with accompanying intellectual disability, language and communication impairments, and low adaptive skills. Using an ABA1 single-case design, children participated in educational sessions targeting developmental and social skills (e.g., motor imitation, expressive/receptive language, spontaneous requests). The results indicated that interacting with a social robot enhanced engagement (d = 0.78) and goal achievement in one case (d = 2.19), and only goal achievement in the second case (d = 2). The results from the present investigation are discussed in light of their implications for the design of a more robust translational research protocol aimed at assessing the effectiveness of robot-based ASD intervention scenarios.

Keywords

Robotics Autism spectrum disorder Human-robot interaction Education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank participants and their families for their invaluable contribution.

Author Contributions

LD, MN, MCC: designed the study. LD: performed data analyses and wrote the paper. MN: collaborated on data analyses and conducted the interventions. DT, MM, AR: collaborated for the design, staging, and writing up of the study. PB, EH: collaborated for the writing and editing of the final manuscript.

Funding Information

This study has been conducted in connection with the Educational Robotics for Students with Learning Disabilities (EDUROB) project (543577-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-KA3-KA3MP) and “Progetto di sviluppo e diffusione di competenze su Ausili Informatici e Tecnologie di supporto ai Disturbi della comunicazione nei Disturbi Pervasivi dello Sviluppo e della Disabilità Intellettiva” (Regione Emilia Romagna – Azienda USL Bologna).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent Statement

All parents of participating children signed a written informed consent.

Ethics Statement

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Bologna Local Health Trust (Comitato Etico Interaziendale Bologna-Imola) and has been assigned number CE 16022.

References

  1. Aldebaran documentation. (2018). Retrieved from http://doc.aldebaran.com/2-1/family/robots/index_robots.html#all-robots.
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beeson, P. M., & Robey, R. R. (2006). Evaluating single-subject treatment research: lessons learned from the aphasia literature. Neuropsychology Review, 16(4), 161–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-006-9013-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Begum, M., Serna, R. W., & Yanco, H. A. (2016). Are robots ready to deliver autism interventions? A comprehensive review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 157–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0346-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G. J., Jonker, P., & De Witte, L. (2012). Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 13(2), 114–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Breazeal, C. (2003). Toward sociable robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 167–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broadbent, E. (2017). Interactions with robots: the truths we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 627–652.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Corsello, C. M. (2005). Early intervention in autism. Infants & Young Children, 18(2), 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dautenhahn, K., & Werry, I. (2004). Towards interactive robots in autism therapy: background, motivation and challenges. Pragmatics & Cognition, 12(1), 1–35.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.12.1.03dau.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Desideri, L., Negrini, M., Cutrone, M. C., Rouame, A., Malavasi, M., Hoogerwerf, E. J., et al. (2017). Exploring the use of a humanoid robot to engage children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 242, 501–509.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Diehl, J. J., Schmitt, L. M., Villano, M., & Crowell, C. R. (2012). The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a critical review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(1), 249–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Esteban, P. G., Baxter, P., Belpaeme, T., Billing, E., Cai, H., Cao, H. L., et al. (2017). How to build a supervised autonomous system for robot-enhanced therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder. Paladyn Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 8(1), 18–38.  https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2017-0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eyssel, F. (2017). An experimental psychological perspective on social robotics. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 87, 363–371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feil-Seifer, D., & Mataric, M. J. (2005). Defining socially assistive robotics. In Rehabilitation Robotics. ICORR 2005: proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (pp. 465–468). Chicago: IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2005.1501143.
  16. Fiske, K., & Delmolino, L. (2012). Use of discontinuous methods of data collection in behavioral intervention: guidelines for practitioners. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(2), 77–81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391826.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Grynszpan, O., Weiss, P. L. T., Perez-Diaz, F., & Gal, E. (2014). Innovative technology-based interventions for autism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis. Autism, 18(4), 346–361.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313476767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrigan, J. A. (2005). Proxemics, kinesics, and gaze. In J. A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 137–198). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Huijnen, C. A., Lexis, M. A., Jansens, R., & Witte, L. P. (2016). Mapping robots to therapy and educational objectives for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(6), 2100–2114.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2740-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Iovannone, R., Dunlap, G., Huber, H., & Kincaid, D. (2003). Effective educational practices for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 150–165.  https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576030180030301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, E. S., Paul, R., Shic, F., & Scassellati, B. (2012). Bridging the research gap: making HRI useful to individuals with autism. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 26–54.  https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Kim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, E. S., Berkovits, L. D., Bernier, E. P., Leyzberg, D., Shic, F., Paul, R., & Scassellati, B. (2013). Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(5), 1038–1049.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1645-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kishida, Y., Kemp, C., & Carter, M. (2008). Revision and validation of the Individual Child Engagement Record: a practitioner-friendly measure of learning opportunities for children with disabilities in early childhood settings. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 33(2), 158–170.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250802088085.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kozima, H., Nakagawa, C., & Yasuda, Y. (2007). Children–robot interaction: a pilot study in autism therapy. Progress in Brain Research, 164, 385–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)64021-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lancioni, G. E. (2017). Assistive technology for people with developmental disabilities. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 63(4), 187–189.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2017.1331787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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? International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 9(3), 72.  https://doi.org/10.5772/51128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lord, C., & Bishop, S. L. (2015). Recent advances in autism research as reflected in DSM-5 criteria for autism spectrum disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 53–70.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112745.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Manolov, R., Losada, J. L., Chacón-Moscoso, S., & Sanduvete-Chaves, S. (2016). Analyzing two-phase single-case data with non-overlap and mean difference indices: illustration, software tools, and alternatives. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00032.
  29. Matarić, M. J. (2017). Socially assistive robotics: human augmentation versus automation. Science Robotics, 2(4), eaam5410.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aam5410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Institute of Health. (2017). Technology and the future of mental health treatment. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/technology-and-the-future-of-mental-health-treatment/index.shtml.
  31. Oldenziel, R., de la Bruhèze, A. A., & De Wit, O. (2005). Europe’s mediation junction: technology and consumer society in the 20th century. History and Technology, 21(1), 107–139.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07341510500037578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pennisi, P., Tonacci, A., Tartarisco, G., Billeci, L., Ruta, L., Gangemi, S., & Pioggia, G. (2016). Autism and social robotics: a systematic review. Autism Research, 9, 165–183.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pierno, A. C., Mari, M., Lusher, D., & Castiello, U. (2008). Robotic movement elicits visuomotor priming in children with autism. Neuropsychologia, 46(2), 448–454.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.08.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Pop, C. A., Pintea, S., Vanderborght, B., & David, D. O. (2014). Enhancing play skills, engagement and social skills in a play task in ASD children by using robot-based interventions. A pilot study. Interaction Studies, 15(2), 292–320.  https://doi.org/10.1075/is.15.2.14pop.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rabbitt, S. M., Kazdin, A. E., & Scassellati, B. (2015). Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clinical Psychology Review, 35, 35–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.07.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Reichow, B., Barton, E. E., Boyd, B. A., & Hume, K. (2012). Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009260.pub2.
  37. Riek, L. D. (2015). Robotics technology in mental health care. In D. Luxton (Ed.), Artificial intelligence in behavioral and mental health care (pp. 185–203). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  38. Robins, B., Dickerson, P., Stribling, P., & Dautenhahn, K. (2004). Robot-mediated joint attention in children with autism: A case study in robot-human interaction. Interaction studies, 5(2), 161–198.  https://doi.org/10.1075/is.5.2.02rob
  39. Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., TeBoekhorst, R., & Billard, A. (2005). Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(2), 105–120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., & Dubowski, J. (2006). Does appearance matter in the interaction of children with autism with a humanoid robot? Interaction Studies, 7(3), 479–512.  https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.16rob.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robins, B., Ferrari, E., Dautenhahn, K., Kronreif, G., Prazak-Aram, B., Gelderblom, G. J., et al. (2010). Human-centred design methods: developing scenarios for robot-assisted play informed by user panels and field trials. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(12), 873–898.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Royakkers, L., & van Est, R. (2015). A literature review on new robotics: automation from love to war. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 549–570.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0295-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rudovic, O., Lee, J., Mascarell-Maricic, L., Schuller, B. W., & Picard, R. W. (2017). Measuring engagement in robot-assisted autism therapy: a cross-cultural study. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 36.  https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scassellati, B., Admoni, H., & Mataric, M. (2012). Robots for use in autism research. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 14, 275–294.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150036.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Shibata, T., & Wada, K. (2011). Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly–a mini-review. Gerontology, 57(4), 378–386.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000319015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Shic, F., & Goodwin, M. (2015). Introduction to technologies in the daily lives of individuals with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3773–3776.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2640-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Simpson, K., Keen, D., & Lamb, J. (2013). The use of music to engage children with autism in a receptive labelling task. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(12), 1489–1496.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simut, R. E., Vanderfaeillie, J., Peca, A., Van de Perre, G., & Vanderborght, B. (2016). Children with autism spectrum disorders make a fruit salad with Probo, the social robot: an interaction study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(1), 113–126.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2556-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Streiner, D., & Norman, G. (2008). Health measurement scales (4th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suzuki, R., Lee, J., & Rudovic, O. (2017). NAO-dance therapy for children with ASD. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 295–296). Vienna: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3038354.
  51. Tapus, A., Peca, A., Aly, A., Pop, C., Jisa, L., Pintea, S., et al. (2012). Children with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot: a series of single case experiments. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 315–347.  https://doi.org/10.1075/is.13.3.01tap.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Turkle, S., Taggart, W., Kidd, C. D., & Dasté, O. (2006). Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science, 18(4), 347–361.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540090600868912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wainer, J., Ferrari, E., Dautenhahn, K., & Robins, B. (2010). The effectiveness of using a robotics class to foster collaboration among groups of children with autism in an exploratory study. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 14(5), 445–455.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0266-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wainer, J., Dautenhahn, K., Robins, B., & Amirabdollahian, F. (2014). A pilot study with a novel setup for collaborative play of the humanoid robot KASPAR with children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(1), 45–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0195-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weiss, M. J., & Harris, S. L. (2001). Teaching social skills to people with autism. Behavior Modification, 25(5), 785–802.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445501255007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Yun, S. S., Choi, J., Park, S. K., Bong, G. Y., & Yoo, H. (2017). Social skills training for children with autism spectrum disorder using a robotic behavioral intervention system. Autism Research, 10(7), 1306–1323.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1778.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Centre for Assistive Technology, ASL BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.AIAS BolognaBolognaItaly
  4. 4.UOSD Programma Integrato Disabilità e Salute, ASL BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations