Robot Assisted Interventions for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: Impact on Users and Caregivers

Abstract

Recent advancements in socially assistive robotics (SAR) have shown a vital potential and have thus inspired us to explore the benefits of robot assisted cognitive rehabilitation of individuals with intellectual disability (ID). Accordingly, the aim of this research was to evaluate the fitness of robot-assisted mental health interventions among individuals with ID and to assess its impact on the users and their caregivers. Firstly, the fitness of robot-assisted mental health interventions was studied through interviews conducted with seven expert psychologists and professional caregivers working daily with individuals with ID. The interviews helped to identify key aspects of a beneficial robot-assisted mental health intervention. Secondly, a case study of robot interactions among six individuals with ID was performed using a NAO robot in different categories of interaction identified by experts. The case study trials were assessed using a questionnaire and results reported positive effects of such interventions on the users, mainly an increase in the engagement. The results also highlight the need for the development of an interactive and adaptive robot-assisted solution for the benefit of the users. Finally, a cognitive rehabilitation activity with and without the robot was conducted in order to assess the impact of the interventions on the caregivers. Thus, thirty individuals with ID and five caregivers participated in multi-center trials which allowed a multidimensional evaluation of the caregiver’s workload. The results confirmed a significant reduction in caregivers burden and raise a concern about the need for a specific training of the caregivers to take maximum advantage of SAR empowered cognitive rehabilitation. This work provides valuable insights for the development of robot-assisted interventions for cognitive rehabilitation of people with ID.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ave Maria Fundació, www.avemariafundacio.org.

  2. 2.

    SoftBank Robotics, www.softbankrobotics.com.

  3. 3.

    PARO Robots Inc., www.parorobots.com.

  4. 4.

    SONY Corporation, www.sony-aibo.com.

  5. 5.

    Vrije Universiteit Brussel, probo.vub.ac.be/Probo.

  6. 6.

    Generalitat de Catalunya, web.gencat.cat/ca/inici/.

  7. 7.

    BOE NÚM 22 del 26/01/2000, www.boe.es/boe/dias/2000/01/26/pdfs/A03317-03410.pdf.

  8. 8.

    www.fundaciolespiga.com.

  9. 9.

    www.aspace.org.

  10. 10.

    www.empatica.com/e4-wristband.

  11. 11.

    www.emotiv.com/epoc/.

References

  1. 1.

    Rabbitt SM, Kazdin AE, Scassellati B (2015) Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clin Psychol Rev 35:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Coeckelbergh M, Pop C, Simut R, Peca A, Pintea S, David D, Vanderborght B (2016) A survey of expectations about the role of robots in robot-assisted therapy for children with ASD: ethical acceptability, trust, sociability, appearance, and attachment. Sci Eng Ethics 22:47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Moyle W, Cooke M, Beattie E, Jones C, Klein B, Cook G, Gray C (2013) Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol Nurs 39:46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Carulla LS, Reed GM, Vaez-Azizi LM et al (2011) Intellectual developmental disorders: towards a new name, definition and framework for mental retardation/intellectual disability in ICD-11. World Psychiatry 10(3):175–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    A. P. Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. American Psychiatric Publishing, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    W. H. Organization (2001) The World health report: 2001: Mental health: new understanding, new hope. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Vos T, Barber RM, Bell B, Murray CJ (2015) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386(9995):743–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Brown JF, Brown MZ, Dibiasio P (2013) Treating individuals with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviors with adapted dialectical behavior therapy. J Ment Health Res Intellect Disabil 6:280–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Feil-Seifer D, Mataric M (2011) Socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18:24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Tapus A, Mataric M, Scasselati B (2007) Socially assistive robotics (grand challenges of robotics). IEEE Robot Autom Mag 14:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kanamori M, Suzuki M, Oshiro H, Tanaka M, Inoguchi T, Takasugi H, Saito Y, Yokoyama T (2003) Pilot study on improvement of quality of life among elderly using a pet-type robot. In: Computational intelligence in robotics and automation, 2003. Proceedings. 2003 IEEE international symposium on, vol 1, pp 107–112

  12. 12.

    Tapus A, Tapus C, Mataric M (2009) The use of socially assistive robots in the design of intelligent cognitive therapies for people with dementia. In: Rehabilitation robotics, 2009. ICORR 2009. IEEE international conference on, pp 924–929

  13. 13.

    Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yasuda Y (2007) Children–robot interaction: a pilot study in autism therapy. In: von Hofsten C, Rosander K (eds) From action to cognition, vol 164 of progress in brain research. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 385–400

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Pennisi P, Tonacci A, Tartarisco G, Billeci L, Ruta L, Gangemi S, Pioggia G (2015) Autism and social robotics: a systematic review. Autism Res 9(2):165–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Moyle W, Jones C, Sung B, Bramble M, O’Dwyer S, Blumenstein M, Estivill-Castro V (2016) What effect does an animal robot called CuDDler have on the engagement and emotional response of older people with dementia? A pilot feasibility study. Int J Soc Robot 8(1):145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Taheri A, Meghdari A, Alemi M, Pouretemad H (2018) Human–robot interaction in autism treatment: a case study on three pairs of autistic children as twins, siblings, and classmates. Int J Soc Robot 10:93–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 6(3):183–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Alemi M, Basirib NM (2016) Exploring social robots as a tool for special education to teach English to Iranian kids with autism. Int J Robot Theory Appl 4(4):32–43

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Worthington A (2005) Rehabilitation of executive deficits. In: The effectiveness of rehabilitation for cognitive deficits, pp 257–268

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Peñaloza-Salazar C, Gutiérrez-Maldonado J, Ferrer-García M et al (2015) Cognitive mechanisms underlying Armoni: a computer-assisted cognitive training programme for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Ann Psychol 32(1):115–124

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hendrich N, Bistry H, Zhang J (2015) Architecture and software design for a service robot in an elderly-care scenario. Engineering 1(1):027–035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Cao H-L, Esteban PG, De Beir A, Simut R, Van de Perre G, Lefeber D, Vanderborght B (2017) A survey on behavior control architectures for social robots in healthcare interventions. Int J Humanoid Robot 14(04):1750021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gonzalez JC, Pulido JC, Fernandez F (2017) A three-layer planning architecture for the autonomous control of rehabilitation therapies based on social robots. Cogn Syst Res 43:232–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Dragone M, Saunders J, Dautenhahn K (2015) On the integration of adaptive and interactive robotic smart spaces. Paladyn J Behav Robot 6:165–179

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Petric F, Miklić D, Kovačić Z (2018) POMDP-based coding of child–robot interaction within a robot-assisted ASD diagnostic protocol. Int J Humanoid Robot 15(2):1850011 (cited By 0)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Pino M, Boulay M, Jouen F, Rigaud AS (2015) Are we ready for robots that care for us? Attitudes and opinions of older adults towards socially assistive robots. Front Aging Neurosci 7(141)

  27. 27.

    Cabibihan J-J, Javed H, Ang M, 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):593–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Huijnen C, Lexis M, Jansens R, de Witte L (2017) How to implement robots in interventions for children with autism? A co-creation study involving people with autism, parents and professionals. J Autism Dev Disord 47(10):3079–3096 (cited By 4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Diehl JJ, Schmitt LM, Villano M, Crowell CR (2012) The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a critical review. Res Autism Spectr Disord 6(1):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Moyle W, Jones C, Cooke M, O’Dwyer S, Sung B, Drummond S (2014) Connecting the person with dementia and family: a feasibility study of a telepresence robot. BMC Geriatr 14:7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Standen P, Brown D, Roscoe J et al (2014) Engaging students with profound and multiple disabilities using humanoid robots. In: Stephanidis C, Antona M (eds) Universal access in human–computer interaction. Universal access to information and knowledge, vol 8514 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 419–430

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Banks MR, Willoughby LM, Banks WA (2008) Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. J Am Med Dir Assoc 9:173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Wagemaker E, Dekkers TJ, Rentergem JAAV, Volkers KM, Huizenga HM (2017) Advances in mental health care: five n = 1 studies on the effects of the robot seal Paro in adults with severe intellectual disabilities. J Mental Health Res Intellect Disabil 10(4):309–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Marti P, Fano F, Palma V, Pollini A, Rullo A, Shibata T (2005) Symposium on robot companion hard problem and open challenges in human–robot interaction, vol Proc. AISB05. Society of the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AISB), pp 64–73

  35. 35.

    Zubrycki I, Granosik G (2016) Understanding therapists’ needs and attitudes towards robotic support. The roboterapia project. Int J Soc Robot 8:553–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wolbring G, Yumakulov S (2014) Social robots: views of staff of a disability service organization. Int J Soc Robot 6:457–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Robins B, Dautenhahn K (2010) Developing play scenarios for tactile interaction with a humanoid robot: a case study exploration with children with autism. In: Ge SS, Li H, Cabibihan J-J, Tan YK (eds) Social robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 243–252

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Ferrari E, Robins B, Dautenhahn K (2009) Therapeutic and educational objectives in robot assisted play for children with autism. In: RO-MAN 2009—the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 108–114

  39. 39.

    Chevalier P, Li JJ, Ainger E, Alcorn AM, Babovic S, Charisi V, Petrovic S, Schadenberg BR, Pellicano E, Evers V (2017) Dialogue design for a robot-based face-mirroring game to engage autistic children with emotional expressions. In: Kheddar A, Yoshida E, Ge SS, Suzuki K, Cabibihan J-J, Eyssel F, He H (eds) Social robotics. Springer, Cham, pp 546–555

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Shukla J, Cristiano J, Amela D, Anguera L, Vergés-Llahí J, Puig D (2015) A case study of robot interaction among individuals with profound and multiple learning disabilities. Springer, Cham, pp 613–622

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Shukla J, Barreda-Ángeles M, Oliver J, Puig D (2017) Effectiveness of socially assistive robotics during cognitive stimulation interventions: impact on caregivers. In: 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 62–67

  42. 42.

    Bienstein C, Fröhlich A (2003) Basale stimulation in der Pflege: die Grundlagen. Edition Pflege, Kallmeyer

  43. 43.

    Sidner CL, Lee C, Kidd CD, Lesh N, Rich C (2005) Explorations in engagement for humans and robots. Artif Intell 166(1):140–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Giullian N, Ricks D, Atherton A, Colton M, Goodrich M, Brinton B (2010) Detailed requirements for robots in autism therapy. In: Systems man and cybernetics (SMC), 2010 IEEE international conference on, pp 2595–2602

  45. 45.

    Montgomery JM, Newton B, Smith C (2008) Test review: Gilliam, J. (2006). GARS-2: Gilliam Autism Rating Scale—Second Edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. J Psychoeduc Assess 26:395–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Gold LH (2014) DSM-5 and the assessment of functioning: the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 42:173–181

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Nihira K, Leland H, Lambert NM (1993) Pro-Ed (firm), American Association on Mental Retardation, and American Association on Mental Deficiency. In: ABS-RC:2 AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale: residential and community. Pro-Ed, Austin

  48. 48.

    Ricks D, Colton M (2010) Trends and considerations in robot-assisted autism therapy. In: Robotics and automation (ICRA), 2010 IEEE international conference on, pp 4354–4359

  49. 49.

    Bellamy G, Croot L, Bush A, Berry H, Smith A (2010) A study to define: profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD). J Intellect Disabil 14:221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Scholtz J (2002) Evaluation methods for human–system performance of intelligent systems. Technical report, DTIC Document

  52. 52.

    Tapus A, Tapus C, Mataric MJ (2009) The use of socially assistive robots in the design of intelligent cognitive therapies for people with dementia. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, pp 924–929

  53. 53.

    Shukla J, Barreda-Ángeles M, Oliver J, Puig D (2016) MuDERI: multimodal database for emotion recognition among intellectually disabled individuals. Springer, Cham, pp 264–273

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge collaboration of all the expert psychologists and professional caregivers involved in the interviews from Ave Maria Foundation, Sitges, Nexe Foundation, Barcelona, Balmes Institution, Barcelona and Taller Baix Camp, Tarragona. Also, authors are grateful for the cooperation of participants and their guardians from Ave Maria Foundation in this research.

Funding

This research work has been supported by the Industrial Doctorate program (Ref. ID.: 2014-DI-022) of AGAUR, Govt. of Catalonia.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jainendra Shukla.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Questionnaire for the Evaluation of Robotic Interaction Effects

Appendix: Questionnaire for the Evaluation of Robotic Interaction Effects

As explained in Sect. 5.1.4, there is no availability of any method or scale for the evaluation of robotic interaction effects. Thus, we used a questionnaire in collaboration with an expert psychiatrist at FAM for such evaluations. This questionnaire was adapted from GARS-2 [45], WHODAS 2.0 [46] and ABS-RC: 2 [47] and consists of 12 questions. The Gilliam Autism Rating Scale-Second Edition (GARS-2) is a supplementary screening tool for individuals suffering with autism spectrum disorders and is scored on a scale of 0–3. ABS-RC: 2 is a method to assess adaptive behavior of mentally handicapped persons and is scored on a scale of 0–4. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2 (WHODAS 2.0) is a tool for assessment of global functioning and impairment and is scored on a scale of 0–5. Since all the ratings were evaluated on different scores, rating scores were converted to percentages.

The questions presented below were selected to evaluate the social interaction and communication intents of the patient while he/she is interacting with other people or with the robot during the activity.

  1. 1.

    Does individual stare or look unhappy or unexcited when praised, humored, or entertained?

  2. 2.

    Does individual generally understand what people/robot say?

  3. 3.

    Does individual avoid eye contact (looks away when someone looks at him/her).

  4. 4.

    Does individual stare or look unhappy or unexcited when praised, humored, or entertained.

  5. 5.

    Does individual is non-imitative of other people when playing.

  6. 6.

    Does individual behave in an unreasonably fearful, frightened manner.

  7. 7.

    Does individual look through people (i.e., shows no recognition that a person is present).

  8. 8.

    Does individual laugh, giggle, cry inappropriately.

  9. 9.

    Does individual do certain things repetitively, ritualistically.

  10. 10.

    Does individual respond negatively or with temper tantrums when given commands, requests, or directions.

  11. 11.

    Does individual line up objects in precise, orderly fashion and becomes upset when the order is disturbed.

  12. 12.

    Is individual able to concentrate on doing something for 10 min?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shukla, J., Cristiano, J., Oliver, J. et al. Robot Assisted Interventions for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: Impact on Users and Caregivers. Int J of Soc Robotics 11, 631–649 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00527-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Socially assistive robotics
  • REHABIBOTICS
  • Robot interaction
  • Rehabilitation
  • Intellectual disability