Abstract
In the past decade, interdisciplinary research has revealed the potential benefits of using social robots in the care of individuals with autism. There is a growing interest in integrating social robots into clinical practice. However, while significant efforts have been made to develop and test the technical aspects, clinical validation and implementation lag behind. This article presents a systematic literature review from a clinical perspective, focusing on articles that demonstrate clinical relevance through experimental studies. These studies are analysed and critically discussed in terms of their integration into healthcare and care practices. The goal is to assist healthcare professionals in identifying opportunities and limitations in their practice and to promote further interdisciplinary cooperation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by impairments in social communication and interaction, repetitive patterns of behaviour, and restricted interests (APA, 2013). Despite several interventions being available for this population, there remains limited evidence regarding their effectiveness in healthcare and care practice, possibly due to the heterogeneity of ASD (Lai et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2021). There has been a strong interest in the use of technology for individuals with ASD (Grossard et al., 2018; Yuan & Ip, 2018). Among the technologies proposed, social robots have received particular attention, with a strong focus on intervention practices (Cabibihan et al., 2013). A substantial body of literature is available on the implementation of social robots for people with ASD. The review by Diehl et al. (2012) is the first critical assessment of the clinical use of robots for individuals with ASD. Their review investigated the responses of individuals with ASD to the robot, the behaviours elicited, and the robot's use in modelling, teaching skills, providing feedback, and encouraging participants. Scassellati and colleagues (2012) noted that most of the studies in the literature were lacking in quantitative rigour, with a dearth of large-scale longitudinal studies. Additionally, the systems developed for therapy applications mainly consisted of a 'Wizard of Oz' setup, where one person operates the robot remotely. Begum et al. (2016) conducted a review to comprehend the status of robot-mediated interventions as evidence-based practices. According to the authors, the use of well-defined inclusion criteria is uncommon, many studies utilised custom-made therapies, the variables considered often lack direct social significance, and most studies did not conform to standard research designs or had limited sample sizes. Pennisi et al. (2016) reported that individuals with ASD exhibit social behaviours towards social robots, rendering them effective mediators in interactions involving individuals with ASD and others. The authors also suggested that social robots are effective attractors for individuals with ASD, with one promising application being the reduction of repetitive and stereotyped behaviours. However, their review also highlighted that robots could sometimes act as distractions during task execution. Damianidou et al. (2020) investigated the impact of social robot interventions on enhancing social communication and interaction. In this context, they found that social robots were primarily utilised as agents to elicit behaviour, and most of the studies indicated a positive impact on the development of targeted skills. Specifically, the robot-mediated social interventions targeted behaviours such as joint attention, eye contact, gesture production, gesture recognition, verbal initiations, and positive affect. Saleh et al. (2021) performed a comprehensive review regarding the use of social robots with ASD participants. They searched for articles between 2008 and 2017 for studies that evaluated the use of robots in the diagnosis, rehabilitation, or education of people with ASD. Their results indicated that NAO was the most used robot and that most studies aimed to improve learning skills. They also proposed ten subcategories of studies according to their purposes (please refer to Saleh et al., 2021 for further details). Raptopoulou et al. (2021) reviewed the literature regarding the use of robots to develop social skills and communication. According to the authors, most of the identified studies used anthropomorphic robots, presented reduced sample sizes, did not include follow-up sessions, or did not have a control group. Salimi et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to understand if social robots could be better than traditional methods. They indicated encouraging results regarding robot-mediated interventions to prepare ASD for job interviews and teach gesture production and identification. The authors also reported that robots mainly increase engagement, a capacity that might come up short when participants are used to the robot. Sani-Bozkurt and Bozkus-Genc (2023) performed a systematic review regarding the use of robots to improve joint attention skills in individuals with ASD, indicating positive responses from participants with ASD to social robots during the interaction. However, given the methodological limitations of the identified studies, they can not draw definitive conclusions.
In summary, recent reviews of the scientific literature concur on the positive impact of using social robots for individuals with ASD. While these reviews provide valuable insights, most of them primarily focus on describing objectives, types of variables, intervention outcomes, elicited behaviours, and study structure/design. We believe that while these aspects are important, there is still a need to offer critical considerations regarding the use of social robots in the ASD population. This would primarily serve to assist clinicians in selecting and implementing social robots for individuals with ASD. For example, it's essential to determine which behaviours should be assessed during interactions with the robot, whether there are relevant factors to consider, or what recommendations professionals make after using a robot with individuals with ASD. For instance, a brief review indicated that robot therapy could be effectively integrated with low-functioning ASD individuals (Conti et al., 2020), shifting the focus towards user characteristics. Given the extensive literature available, it is worth exploring additional aspects that may be useful for clinical purposes. Furthermore, since the last critical review by Diehl et al. (2012), the literature has seen significant updates, highlighting the need for further considerations.
The present study aims to critically review, from a clinical point of view, the recent literature regarding the use of social robots in the care of patients with ASD. The objectives are to systematically examine the articles to filter out the work that is only technology-focused, then to provide a comprehensive analysis of the clinical applications, highlighting opportunities, advantages and disadvantages of the current solutions, to support the practitioners in adopting these promising technologies in daily clinical settings. This work specifically aims to address several key questions: 1) the dimensions related to the ASD user that can be analysed during the interaction with the robot, which can support clinical assessment and follow-up; 2) the advantages of using social robots in the interaction with ASD patients; 3) newly proposed uses in clinical or home settings for these robots; 4) suggestions and insights from clinical staff who have experience using these robots; 5) the various areas of intervention that have been considered to date.
Method
We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA, Moher et al., 2009) guidelines. The search strategy covered the period up to 31 December 2022. We searched for papers published in Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, IEEEXplore, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), and PubMed using the keywords 'autism' AND 'robot.' No restrictions were placed on text availability, publication date, or article type. We considered peer-reviewed papers eligible for review. Conference papers were also eligible since they could introduce emerging technology and new implementations. Our search yielded a total of 2797 articles, and after removing 1262 duplicates, 1535 articles remained. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram.
Abstract Screening
One author screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies. During this phase, studies were selected following the subsequent inclusion criteria: a) the study must focus on autism; b) the study must evaluate the effectiveness of one or more social robots in diagnosis, study, and/or rehabilitation; c) the study must include at least one experiment, quasi-experiment, pilot study, observational study, feasibility study, or clinical trial, moreover, we also consider studies that provided guidance regarding the design of the robot as adequate; d) the study must include at least one sample consisting solely of individuals with ASD; e) the robot must be physically present and actively used within the study; f) the paper should not primarily focus on robot capabilities and descriptions; g) the paper should be published in a peer-reviewed journal or conference; h) conference papers should be published between 2017 and 2022 (we chose a relatively wide time range of 6 years considering that the pandemic might have slowed down the publication process); i) the study should be in English; j) the paper should not be a review, a survey, a book chapter, a conference proceeding, or an editorial letter.
As a result, 1031 articles were excluded, and the remaining 504 were considered against the eligibility criteria.
Eligibility Criteria
After completing the screening of titles and abstracts, we considered articles according to five categories: Intervention Studies, where the use of robots aimed to improve skills; Experimental Studies, which demonstrated a research hypothesis; Assessment Studies, where the interaction with the robot allowed to measure a specific dimension of the participants; Design Studies, where experts in the autism field provided feedback aimed at improving the robot after its use; and Feasibility Studies, which preliminary tested a new proposal in the clinical context.
Additionally, we excluded studies that did not comprehensively report results, setting descriptions, or had limited results that hindered the assessment of effectiveness, as well as those consisting primarily of project descriptions. To ensure result accuracy, we excluded studies that did not report participant age (either through a numerical range or means and standard deviations), gender, and diagnosis. We also excluded studies that lacked reported effectiveness assessed through statistical tests, effect sizes, or accuracy outcomes. Furthermore, we excluded studies that primarily focused on programming classes, such as Wainer et al., 2010.
In the case of feasibility and design studies, statistical tests or effect sizes did not imply their exclusion. However, to align with our goal of identifying new potential applications tested in actual patients' daily contexts, we excluded feasibility studies that did not specify the context (home or clinic). Moreover, we only included design studies in which experts in the autism field provided feedback after clinicians used the social robot with patients diagnosed with ASD.
As a result, we excluded 329 articles, leaving us with 175 articles for analysis.
Results
Potential Use of the Social Robots in Detecting Characteristics and Behaviours of ASD
The systematic literature search yielded 24 articles that focused on the interaction between robots and individuals with ASD to measure behavioural variables and provide outcomes to support clinicians. Arent and colleagues (2022) recommended using interactions with a robot to assess turn-taking behaviours in children with ASD. In their study, children engaged in two 5-min games with the NAO robot after an initial familiarisation phase. Video recordings of these interactions were later analysed by professionals who assessed turn-taking behaviours using a predefined observational scale. The study's findings indicated that children with ASD exhibited lower levels of turn-taking behaviours compared to typically developing (TD) children. Alnajjar et al. (2021) employed a NAO robot (Aldebaran/Softbank NAO robot) equipped with a chest-mounted mobile phone to detect attention and various emotions (neutral, happy, surprised, angry, and sad) during a five-minute interactive dialogue with a sample of 11 male children with ASD. The robot operated autonomously, with the therapist intervening in potentially harmful situations. Alnajjar et al. reported that the system effectively measured attention, providing numerical attentional levels. Two studies conducted by Javed and colleagues (2020a; b) used video recordings of interactions between children with ASD and typically developing children and two robots, Robotis Mini and Romo. These interactions occurred during a 10-min session within a sensory maze, creating opportunities for engagement with the children. The authors utilised these interactions to assess the risk of ASD and the level of engagement among participants. The detection of the risk of ASD involved assessing facial expressions and movement patterns, while engagement was determined through eye gaze, vocalisations, and smiles. In their 2018 study, Moghadas and colleagues aimed to differentiate between individuals with ASD and those with TD by analysing the individual interactions of 8 children with ASD and 8 TD children with RobotParrot. These interactions were recorded using two cameras, and RobotParrot was remotely controlled to perform communication actions during a 190-s session with the children. Based on the child's spatial positioning during the session, the system achieved an accuracy rate of 81.3%. The study conducted by Kumazaki et al. (2019a) employed two robots to assess both the diagnosis of ASD and its severity. The protocol, implemented with two CommU robots, involved a script based on the ADOS birthday party scene (Lord et al., 2000) administered to 15 children with ASD and 19 TD children. The two robots autonomously executed the scripts while parents were allowed to stay in the room, and an external clinician observed the tasks, assigning scores based on child behaviour. Results indicated that, despite the procedure appearing suitable for assessing autism severity, it yielded poor outcomes as a diagnostic tool. Another approach to screening for autism was proposed by Dehkordi et al. (2015). They recorded video interactions, both individual and group, involving 35 individuals with ASD and RobotParrot. Individual sessions lasted 8–12 min, while group interactions extended to 20–30 min. An expert evaluated the recordings based on the criteria from the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), assessing aspects of social interactions, communication, and repetitive behaviours. The authors suggested that this method could effectively screen for high-severity ASD with a high level of confidence. In the last study aiming to assess ASD severity, 12 individuals with mild or minimal severity, as assessed by the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) (Schopler et al., 1980), interacted with two NAO robots (Ali et al., 2021). The participants were recorded by a Kinect, with the operator in a separate room. The two robots interacted with each participant, using signals to capture their attention. Additionally, if a participant focused their gaze on one robot for 5 s, the robot initiated an imitation task, as previously described in a study by Mehmood et al. (2019). The system detected autism severity (mild or minimal) with 76% accuracy using measures of attention and imitation accuracy. Baird et al. (2017) analysed audio data from 14 individuals with ASD from the DE-ENIGMA dataset (Shen et al., 2018) who underwent emotion recognition training led by a human or a robot. Following the Social Responsiveness Scale, second edition (Constantino & Gruber, 2012), Baird and colleagues classified most of the vocalisations made by children. Another study (Amiriparian et al., 2018) recognised echolalic patterns in 15 participants with ASD using the DE-ENIGMA dataset, achieving an accuracy of 83.5%. Rudovic et al., (2018a, b, 2019) conducted a series of studies to measure the engagement of children with ASD. They recorded video and audio during various tasks with NAO and a set of emotion-representing cards. The therapist controlled the robot in the same room. Participants had to associate the cards with the emotions expressed by the robot, imitate emotions, and describe how they would feel after listening to a story. Each task was completed within a 25-min session. Authors estimated children's engagement using multimodal data, including face, body, autonomic physiology, and audio data, yielding encouraging results. One study (Zhang et al., 2019a) used a robot to assess the theory of mind in 20 children with ASD and compared their performance with that of 20 TD children. A NAO robot and a therapist performed two false belief tasks with each child. Afterwards, the child was asked about the robot's beliefs in the presented context. The study revealed that participants with ASD exhibited lower accuracy compared to the TD children. Del Coco et al. (2018) measured the affective states of 8 participants with ASD while the robot Zeno displayed videos on a tablet. Petric et al. (2017) proposed an algorithm for recognising gestures during an autonomous imitation task. The algorithm indicated many false positives, highlighting the need for improvements. Another study utilised a multicamera array to record the interactions of 29 children with ASD and 16 children with other conditions with the robot ONO during a 5-min joint attention task (Ramírez-Duque et al., 2020). This task could be conducted by the therapist or autonomously by the robot, with the therapist introducing the robot and remaining in the room. The study aimed to measure participants' joint attention, eye contact, and adult seeking, achieving an agreement with the external judge of 67%, 76%, and 79%, respectively. Di Nuovo et al. (2018) studied the use of the robot to identify children's attention during therapy. They analysed recordings of a NAO robot embedded into the daily therapy of six children with ASD (Conti et al., 2021). In this context, each participant performed imitation tasks with the robot while the therapist was nearby. Using recordings from the frontal camera of the robot, the authors accurately detected children's visual attention during the imitation training in a clinical setting. Another study, proposed by Cai et al. (2018), aimed to extract multiple sources and provide output to the therapist. This system used a NAO robot, two Kinects, and three cameras. The system could recognise the child's actions, emotions (positive or negative), and gaze during joint attention, imitation, and turn-taking interventions, thus assessing their performance. The findings indicated that the system was suitable for measuring variables of interest and reporting intervention scores. In another identified study, the goal was to recognise actions and emotions performed by children with ASD during a therapy session (Marinoiu et al., 2018). The system used data from the DE-ENIGMA dataset and assessed positive or negative emotions, as well as various actions that could occur during therapy, such as pointing, grabbing a card, high-fiving, or waving. Finally, Fassina and colleagues (2022) introduced an algorithm to recognise various total-body gestures in real-time during a therapy protocol. This algorithm has been employed to recognise ASD gestures online during a robot-mediated intervention (Ivani et al., 2022).
Evidence from Experimental Studies
Our review identified 69 experimental studies investigating the benefits and limitations of using social robots for individuals with ASD, offering valuable insights into their applications.Footnote 1 These articles are categorised into subsections based on their outcomes.
Strengths of the Robot in the Interaction with Patients with ASD and Considerations Regarding its Features
The studies considered within the review have assessed the interaction of individuals with ASD with social robots, highlighting significant advantages and considerations. Mehmood et al. (2021a) proposed that children with ASD can become more engaged in active interactions, where the robot responds based on environmental data. Engaging children in familiar activities can enhance participation (Rakhymbayeva et al., 2021). Furthermore, tailoring sessions to align with their individual play preferences can increase engagement, as observed by Telisheva et al. (2022). It has also been suggested that there may be an optimal sequence of interaction objectives, as indicated by Baraka et al. (2022). Ensuring the robot's behaviours are predictable can benefit attention, as high variability in speech, motion, and responses might lead to reduced attention levels over time (Schadenberg et al., 2021). However, it's worth noting that a previous study found no significant differences between contingent and non-contingent robot actions (Peca et al., 2015). Children with ASD tend to follow more instructions than tasks, at least in an imitation paradigm (Arent et al., 2019). One study indicated that individuals with ASD can engage in activities involving multiple robots (Mehmood et al., 2019). Regarding the robot's appearance, one study suggested that a humanised appearance and congruent intonation tend to evoke more positive feelings. However, this aspect does not appear to influence task performance (van Straten et al., 2018). Modulating a robot's facial expressions may enhance a child's accuracy in recognising emotions (Askari et al., 2018). Additionally, stimuli from the robot have the potential to improve engagement (Li et al., 2020a), and one study reported that speech stimuli capture attention more quickly than visual stimuli (Mehmood et al., 2021b). However, this consideration should be taken with caution, as it has been reported that individuals with ASD could also be more responsive to visual or motion stimuli according to their severity (Ali et al., 2020a). The work of Jouaiti and colleagues (2022) preliminarily indicates a positive effect due to the sound emitted by the robot's actuator. Studies have indicated that interacting with social robots has the potential to reduce stress levels (Bharatharaj et al., 2017a, b). Furthermore, a separate study by Kumazaki et al. (2021a) proposed the use of huggable robots, suggesting that tactile seeking may help reduce stress levels (Kumazaki et al., 2021a). In this context, it's worth noting that huggable robots do not appear to enhance the performance of children with ASD. However, they have shown the potential to elicit heightened emotional responses and foster increased social interaction (Pinto-Bernal et al., 2022). Social robots could foster interaction with others, promoting collaboration during triadic interactions and in subsequent dyadic interactions with others (Wainer et al., 2014a). For instance, during a free-play scenario, children with ASD successfully used the robot as a mediator to interact with others (Giannopulu, 2013). Another study compared triadic interactions of children with ASD, a confederate adult, and an interaction partner, who could be a human adult, a computer game, or a social robot. Results indicated that children with ASD directed more speech to the confederate when the interaction partner was the robot; they also tended to talk more (Kim et al., 2013).
Aspects Related to the ASD User Influencing the Interaction
Articles have indicated that characteristics related to individuals with ASD can have implications for their interactions with robots. Indeed, individuals with ASD may exhibit different reactions when facing a robot. Short et al. (2017) found that children might view the robot as an engaging object that provides an enjoyable sensory experience or as an agent that elicits social behaviours. However, the most significant characteristic to consider is the symptomatologic severity of these individuals. Autism severity is associated with a preference for the type of stimuli used in a reinforcement paradigm, with children of lower severity tending to prefer visual stimuli and children with milder severity favouring physical ones (Ali et al., 2021). It also appears that different levels of severity are linked to varying levels of engagement during interactions with the robot, as children with more severe symptoms exhibit fewer instances of eye gaze and facial expressions (Ahmad et al., 2017). Individuals with higher severity levels also display lower levels of positive affect during these interactions (van den Berk-Smeekens et al., 2020), though they may experience improved engagement across sessions (Telisheva et al., 2022). Additionally, it seems that individuals with higher severity levels tend to prefer humanoid robots over those perceived as mechanical or mascots, as reported by Kumazaki et al. (2017a). However, as Kumazaki et al. noted, this preference might be due to the perceived high technical level of the robot. One study indicated that individuals with ASD exhibiting fewer symptoms and better language skills tend to initiate more interactions with both the robot and adults when prompted by the robot (Schadenberg et al., 2020). Indeed, when comparing individuals with ASD who are verbal to those who are non-verbal, the verbal group consistently tends to display higher engagement and lower levels of aggression toward the robot (Sandygulova et al., 2022). It's worth noting that Amirova et al. (2022) suggest that parental presence can significantly influence children's behaviour based on their verbal abilities. Specifically, Amirova et al. found that verbal children are more compliant with therapist and robot instructions when their parents are absent, while non-verbal children tend to be more engaged and less aggressive when their parents are present. In addition to studies examining symptom severity, other studies have explored sensory aspects. Children with ASD who exhibit hyporeactivity to visual stimuli and an overreliance on proprioceptive stimuli are likely to experience more difficulties during imitation tasks. They tend to look less at their partner and carry out fewer successful imitations, suggesting that robot-mediated interventions should consider this characteristic (Chevalier et al., 2017). Sensitivity to vision is linked to improved joint attention skills in children with ASD during robot-assisted therapy, especially for those with lower visual sensitivity. Conversely, higher sensitivity to hearing is associated with better outcomes when combining standard therapy with robot activities, potentially due to heightened responsiveness to the robot's motor sounds (Chevalier et al., 2022).
During interactions with robots in mock interviews, participants with ASD (aged between 13 and 35 years) with higher sensory sensitivity tended to find it easier to converse with the android robot with limited motion (Kumazaki et al., 2022a). Finally, one study reported effects related to children's age, indicating that preschool-aged children with ASD might show lower likability toward the robot compared to school-aged children with ASD (van den Berk-Smeekens et al., 2020). Sandygulova et al. (2022) reported similar findings, indicating that comorbid conditions, such as ADHD, could also influence the interaction.
Cultural Differences
Studies evaluated differences in the interaction due to cultural aspects. One study did not indicate differences between Japanese and French children with ASD during the interaction with the robot, contrary to what happened during the interaction with a human (Giannopulu et al., 2020). One study compared Asian and Serbian children’s interaction with the robot, indicating differences in engagement displays (Rudovic et al., 2017). Another study involved Serbian and English teachers and reported that using the robot during activities with children with ASD affected their touch styles (Li et al., 2020b).
Differences Between ASD and TD During the Interaction with the Robot
Some studies evaluated differences between individuals with ASD and TD related to the interaction with the social robot. In Barnes et al. (2021), participants with ASD showed a higher level of engagement and attention than the control group during a dancing activity with the robot. In contrast, another study indicated that, during an interaction task, children with ASD showed fewer responses to joint attention inductions, spending less time gazing toward the target and presenting higher space displacement (Anzalone et al., 2019). Moreover, children with ASD exhibit more maladaptive behaviours when interacting with the robot, intended as avoidance or distractions, socially inappropriate actions, and demands (Costescu et al., 2016). One study involved a sample of adolescents with ASD interviewed by a robot and indicated that, compared to a control group, they preferred interacting with the robot as reported from their comfort levels and demonstrating lengthier disclosure (Kumazaki et al., 2018a).
Differences Between the Interactions with Social Robots and with Human Agents
Another category of studies investigated the differences in individuals with ASD when interacting with a robot versus a human. In Cao et al. (2020), participants with ASD indicated better performance with a human partner, compared to a robot, during a joint attention task, thus confirming a previous study (Anzalone et al., 2014). This finding aligns with another study in which the robot induced a lower fixation time on a target, and children with ASD exhibited more interest in the robot (Cao et al., 2019). Similarly, Ghorbandaei Pour et al. (2018) found that, compared to a robot, participants performed better with a human agent during a facial imitation task, while another study (Taheri et al., 2021a) showed similar results between the two conditions in an imitation task. These studies suggest that human agents yield better performances. However, other studies present contrasting results. For instance, one study indicated that children with ASD performed better during interactions with a robot in a joint attention task (Kumazaki et al., 2018b). Another study revealed that, during the presentation of social prompts, children responded more to a robot partner than to a human (Kumazaki et al., 2019b). Additionally, research conducted by Trombly and colleagues (2022) demonstrated that children with ASD exhibited similar learning behaviours when instructed by humans and robots in a group classroom setting. Thus, the results regarding better performance seem contradictory. Other evidence evaluated behavioural differences of participants with ASD between the two types of agents. One study indicated that, during an imitation task, participants with ASD directed more attention to the robot and exhibited fewer stereotyped behaviours (Costa et al., 2018). Furthermore, three studies indicated that individuals with ASD tend to focus more on the robot than a human, showing a particular preference for the robot's eye area (Bekele et al., 2013, 2014; Yoshikawa et al., 2019). One study suggested that children with ASD showed higher attention levels (Warren et al., 2015a, b), as well as a visual and contact preference for the robot over the therapist (Ramírez-Duque et al., 2020)1. Another study indicated that children with ASD reported better feelings during interactions with a robot compared to interactions with a person (Giannopulu et al., 2018; Giannopulu and Watanabe, 2016). Despite discordant results regarding performance, it seems that these studies concur that children with ASD tend to be more entertained and interested in the robot than in a human partner (Wainer et al., 2014b). In line with this, Šimleša and colleagues (2022) found that children with ASD exhibited performances comparable to TD children in an imitation task. However, it was noteworthy that children with ASD displayed heightened focus and interest when interacting with robots. Other evidence supports this consideration; indeed, introducing a robot to a child with ASD has a more positive effect than introducing a new person (Bharatharaj et al., 2018). Moreover, the social robot appears to facilitate verbal and emotional expressions (Giannopulu et al., 2016) and elicit more collaborative play when compared to a human agent (Pop et al., 2014).
Three studies specifically involved children's teachers. Among these, one study (Fachantidis et al., 2020) found that children with ASD made more eye contact and interactions with the robot than with the teacher. Another study (Pliasa & Fachantidis, 2019) suggested that children with ASD demonstrated better performance and higher participation in activities when interacting with the robot. Finally, Huijnen et al. (2021) reported that participants with ASD displayed more non-verbal imitations, engaged in more physical contact, and paid greater attention to the robot than to the teacher during the sessions.
We identified only two studies that considered adolescents with ASD. These studies indicated that adolescents preferred interacting with a humanoid robot interviewer over a human (Kumazaki et al., 2018a) and followed the robot's gaze more closely (Yoshikawa et al., 2017). In a more recent study conducted by Kumazaki and colleagues (2022b), individuals diagnosed with ASD, with an average age of 21.7 years and a standard deviation of 5.1, tended to engage in greater self-disclosure when exposed to exemplification provided by an android as opposed to exemplification delivered by humans, especially when discussing negative subjects.
Additional Considerations
In addition to the experimental studies already presented, the review identified other studies that provide meaningful insights but do not directly address the subsections presented. Pop et al. (2013a) used a robot to perform social stories with children with ASD, indicating better outcomes when compared to a computer-based presentation. Another study compared the calming effect between a live dog and a robot dog and suggested higher calming effects for the first one (Silva et al., 2018a, 2019). Zantinge et al. (2019) used a social robot to induce fear in children with ASD and a control group by making the robot approach participants by emitting noise and moving its arms. Results revealed that both groups presented an increase in arousal levels; there were no differences between the two groups (Zantinge et al., 2019). Lastly, it is worth noting that one study suggests that following interactions with a robot, children tend to develop a greater appreciation for it, while parents' acceptance and overall user experience with robots may decrease (Zehnder et al., 2022).
Robot Design Suggestions from Trials in the Clinical Context
Within this category, we identified three articles where clinical professionals provided feedback and suggested improvements after testing the robot within a clinical setting. Elbeleidy (2021), and Elbeleidy et al., (2021), analysed therapists’ dialogues and interactions performed through an interface to teleoperate a social robot during interventions. Their results suggest that the interface should be adapted to allow the clinician to quickly change between the many phases that characterize the intervention sessions. Moreover, they suggested providing a dedicated view for content to establish rapport with the child and easily provide feedback. Sochanski et al. (2021) recruited ABA therapists, trained them in teleoperating Pepper using a virtual reality interface or the software Choreographe (Pot et al., 2009), and allowed them to independently design an intervention which was then delivered to a child with ASD during a single session. After that, they interviewed therapists, and the resulting transcripts were analysed. On design aspects, therapists reported concerns about timing and responsiveness in prompt delivery and the need to deliver physical prompts and be able to adapt during problematic behaviours. On the use of virtual reality, they reported a lack of awareness, preferring the use of Choreographe for more precise control of the robot’s movement. Moreover, they indicated that the robot could reduce the workload by automating repetitive interventions.
Potential Uses Highlighted by Feasibility Studies in the Clinical Field
The systematic review identified 21 articles according to the criteria. The analysis of these studies indicates new perspectives on using social robots within clinical and home-based settings. Proceeding from the most recent study, Tobar et al. (2021) proposed a portable robotic kit for reinforcement therapy to teach gestures in a home setting. While highly portable, a dedicated smartphone app provides assembly instructions tailored to specific intervention purposes. The study was conducted in a rehabilitation structure, where individuals with Level 1 ASD indicated 100% satisfaction rates, while Level 2 and Level 3 reached a satisfaction of 50%. Beaudoin et al. (2021) proposed combining NAO with a wearable haptic device to facilitate individuals with ASD transitions between activities. The haptic device sends vibration clues before the therapist’s instructions, while the robot performs a verbal script to announce the transitions. Their preliminary results indicated good responses. Another study introduced a teleoperated robot in a Serbian autism centre and a school in the UK (Li et al., 2020c). In this study, 31 minimally verbal children with ASD controlled and responded to the robot using a tablet in activities aimed at teaching face features and emotions. The robot was also being monitored and controlled by an adult in the same room as the child. Results indicated that the system was accessible to this specific clinical group. Lytridis et al. (2020) had two robots in a therapy room interact with each other to perform tasks such as greetings, following the rhythm of music, using idioms, and identifying basic emotions. Results obtained from one participant indicated that a multi-robot approach seems suitable and could improve the skills considered. An interesting study evaluated the long-term deployment of the social robot Kaspar (Dautenhahn et al., 2009) in a nursery for children with ASD, without the presence of the researchers (Syrdal et al., 2020). Staff members and volunteers were trained to use the robot in their daily activities with different scenarios. Participants were children ranging from 2 to 6 years old; they took part in the study for an average of 16.35 months. Results obtained from the study were encouraging as the presence of Kaspar resulted in positive outcomes, besides being used regularly. In Lemaignan and colleagues study (2022), Pepper was deployed in a Special Educational Needs school for children with ASD for three weeks, resulting in successful integration, consistent interactions with a significant group of children, and positive outcomes from most of the children and professionals. The study of Desideri et al. (2020) proposed a four-step model (Goal setting; Activity identification and development; Trial and implementation; and Follow-up) to co-develop robot activities to facilitate robot usage in mainstream contexts such as schools. A single-case study indicated positive outcomes in the use of the proposed model. Di Nuovo et al. (2020) used two robots, NAO and MiRO, to introduce and prepare ASD patients for clinical procedures by simulating procedures with the robots. According to their results, most participants enjoyed the interaction and showed compliance, suggesting that social robots could be supportive tools to prepare children with ASD for clinical situations. The study by Ishak et al. (2019) evaluated Rero (Cytron Technologies Sdn Bhd) to help children with ASD imitate actions, follow instructions, name objects, and match colours. Their study involved two centres for autism. Children with ASD indicated positive levels of engagement. Sandygulova et al. (2019) conducted a study in a rehabilitation centre. They performed a series of sessions with a robot and hospitalised children with ASD and ADHD for 21 days. They refined the robot throughout various sessions, according to observations and the feedback of therapists and parents. This specific approach led to positive outcomes. A series of studies (Clabaugh et al., 2018, 2019a; Pakkar et al., 2019) aimed to improve the math skills of children with ASD by deploying an autonomous robot in their home environment. The home-based intervention lasted for about a month. The robot gave instructions and feedback tailored to the child’s proficiency. Wood et al., (2017, 2018) evaluated Kaspar to improve visual perspective-taking in children with ASD. Silva et al. (2018b) proposed the social robot ZECA combined with an object-based playware technology, PlayCube, in an emotion recognition game. PlayCube is a haptic device that participants can manipulate to complete the task conducted by the robot. Participants with ASD responded positively to the activity proposed. Another study evaluated the usefulness of using the robot KIBO to teach children with ASD coding skills through a series of activities. Results indicated the robot was engaging, but children with severe symptoms seemed to perform the activities individually (Albo-Canals et al., 2018). Zaraki et al. (2018) evaluated the use of a system called Sense-Think-Act in a school setting with four children with ASD. The system was developed to make the robot a semi-autonomous social agent, that is, able to autonomously interact with children during activities under the supervision of a human operator. The study indicated the potential usefulness of the proposed system. Jimenez et al. (2017) investigated the feasibility of using a robot in a collaborative activity with three children with ASD while the teacher was observing. Specifically, to encourage collaborative learning, the robot was programmed to give incorrect answers to pre-programmed questions, and then to ask the child to teach him. The study indicated the feasibility of the proposed method. Golestan et al. (2017) conducted a feasibility study in a treatment centre where children with ASD verbally controlled the robot Sphero. During a short session of 15 min, participants showed interest in its use. Simut et al. (2016) evaluated the use of Probogotchi to set a play environment between a child with ASD and her sibling, suggesting its potential to encourage social interactions.
Interventions with Social Robots
Our review identified 58 articles that used social robots to improve ASD skills, where most studies have indicated positive results in using robots. The literature already reported that intervention studies present a wide heterogeneity of measures and methods. Giving a detailed description of the proposed interventions is out of the scope of this review. We provide an updated overview of which areas have been considered by interventions, identifying those studies with high impact in the literature. Additionally, we focus our attention on those studies that have attempted to introduce the robot in long-term ecological settings, representing a situation closer to a systematic and widespread social robot use for professionals.
Robot-mediated interventions have considered several areas; Table 1 presents a summary of the areas of intervention and related studies. A graphical representation of interventions by date and impact was generated using Litmaps (https://www.litmaps.com) and is presented in Fig. 2. In this figure, each identified article is depicted as a node, positioned based on its publication year and the logarithmic function of its number of citations. Lines connecting the nodes indicate whether these articles have been cited in other publications. This allowed us to identify those who were more impactful for each year. An interactive version is also available at the following link (https://app.litmaps.com/shared/8fa32129-f271-4e31-834b-45b0fb15aec3). The identified studies comprehend: interventions related to imitation, communicative skills, attention and engagement, social skills, theory of mind and perspective-taking, emotion recognition and expression, restricted interests and repetitive behaviours, body awareness and knowledge, cognitive flexibility, non-verbal communication, vocational skills, developmental and skills for daily activities, parental stress, and motor coordination.
This is a graphical map representing the identified articles related to interventions for people with ASD mediated by a robot. Each article is represented by a node, and they are arranged based on the date of publication (x-axis) and a logarithmic function of the number of citations (y-axis). Lines connect the articles to indicate references between them
Among these, Clabaugh et al. (2019b) performed a long-term intervention at children’s homes for a mean of 41 days, with a minimum of 30 days. After the system setup, the research team informed the family on how to use the robot, which was fully autonomous, encouraging them to conduct five weekly sessions. The robot could tailor the intervention based on the child’s feedback. They indicated better outcomes in math reasoning and numerical operations. Scassellati and colleagues (2018) performed a long-term home-based intervention to improve social skills. Twelve families with children with ASD participated and finished the intervention. It lasted 30 days, including 30-min daily sessions, where the social robot Jibo (Jibo Inc.) autonomously conducted a daily social skills game. Games proposed by the robot consisted of a story game where the child needed to understand social situations and the character’s emotions, two virtual barrier games designed to improve perspective-taking, and ordering or sequencing games. Their results indicated that children maintained their engagement after one month of sessions, with improvements in joint attention and social behaviours directed toward others and themselves.
The most impactful article identified is the study of Tapus et al. (2012), where they used a single-subject ABAC design with four children. Their NAO robot could mirror the movements of a person in front of it. This feature was used as a reward system to encourage motor initiation towards the robot. After a familiarisation phase, the experimenter showed this feature to the participant. Children interacted autonomously with the robot, while the experimenter supervised the interaction and could offer prompts. In the last phase, the experimenter showed a movement awaiting the child’s imitation, which the robot mirrored in return. The same protocol was also performed by a human instead of the robot. Results indicated that two participants were more engaged with the NAO robot than the human, and another child performed more motor initiations with the robot than during a baseline task. Among the most recent and impactful studies, Ali et al. (2019) performed an intervention for joint attention and imitation, and their study is of particular interest as they implemented a multi-robot system to introduce children to multi-person communications. Zhang et al. (2019b) implemented a robot intervention to teach children with ASD complex social rules by making them perform tasks regarding distrust and deception. Their study indicated that children with ASD could present more difficulties in learning these social rules than a TD group. So et al., (2019a, b) proposed a robot-drama intervention to improve the social skills of children with ASD, reporting better outcomes regarding narrative skills. David et al. (2020) performed single-case experiments focused on children’s ability to wait for their turns. Each child performed a collaborative activity with the robot where they had to pair expressions appearing on a touchscreen device within their respective category when allowed to do so. The robot was remotely controlled and gave feedback during the task. Although David et al. found a similar effect between robot and human intervention, children seemed more interested in the robot. Marino et al. (2020) implemented NAO as a co-therapist to improve children's emotional comprehension. While the therapist performed the intervention, he controlled NAO through an iPad, which provided prompts using body movements and verbal scripts. Through this, the robot helped the therapist interact with children during the intervention by providing prompts and feedback and maintaining motivation and attention. Results indicated better outcomes after the proposed intervention. The study by Ghiglino and colleagues (2021) suggested that combining standard therapy and robot therapy could provide better improvements in social skills than standard therapy alone. In their study, children faced the robot Cozmo and two cubes that could light up. During the intervention, the robot looked at one of these cubes, and then the therapist asked the participants to indicate where it had looked. The robot also gave feedback regarding the correctness of the answer. Taheri et al. (2021b) used a social robot to perform a series of music games related to imitation, joint attention, and turn-taking. Their results showed improvements, including a reduction in stereotyped behaviours.
Discussion
Potential Use of the Social Robots in Detecting Characteristics and Behaviours of ASD
Although there is a strong interest in using social robots to evaluate participants with ASD, it has significantly involved the technical side, while from a clinical perspective has been neglected. Indeed, previous reviews have not discussed this topic concerning the clinical aspects, even if the assessment of people with ASD represents a fundamental step for the healthcare surveillance system. Thus, we first provide an initial critical evaluation of these studies. The analysis of data recorded from the interaction between participants with ASD and the robot may support the assessment of several dimensions: attentional levels, engagement, turn-taking, joint attention, affective states, facial expressions, movement patterns, specific actions, imitation accuracy during a task, vocalisations, and the risk or severity of ASD. The accuracy reported from the studies is encouraging, indicating high rates of agreements with external evaluators. The proposed approaches could potentially support screening, performance evaluation, and follow-up evaluations. However, we should note some limitations. Most of the reported studies did not control for novelty effects and were carried out in single brief sessions, limiting the generalisation regarding increased exposure to the robot. Only two studies implemented tasks related to psychometric measures with the robot, whose Zhang et al. (2019a) performed false belief tasks with ASD and TD children, and Kumazaki et al. (2019a) performed the birthday party scene derived from the ADOS. Despite this may indicate consideration of well-known clinical standard measurements implemented within the robot, a critical aspect is the lack of validation of assessments carried out through robots. Indeed, in our review, we did not identify valid and reliable robot-supported psychometric evaluations or any validation studies to check the psychometric properties of a robot-mediated assessment. This consideration represents a major current limitation for using robots in clinical assessment. Even if the proposed assessments may monitor the individual with ASD, most of the outcomes measured are not related to the core symptomatology of the condition. Two studies evaluated the risk of ASD based on clinical measures (ADOS and DSM-IV-TR) according to the evaluation made by experts who observed the interactions between children and robots (Dehkordi et al., 2015; Kumazaki et al., 2019a, b, c, d). We should also note that some studies indicate that movement patterns are promising in identifying the risk of ASD (Moghadas & Moradi, 2018; Javed et al., 2020a, b). Beyond stereotyped behaviours (APA, 2013), individuals with ASD also present a high prevalence of motor impairments (Ming et al., 2007) and coordination deficits (Fournier et al., 2010). Many studies that aimed to identify behaviours utilised multi-camera installations, which could hinder their practical integration. Indeed, this will require a dedicated room and significant alterations to the facilities. Robotic assessments are not conducted online; instead, they transfer the data to an external computing unit, which requires time for processing. This delay is primarily due to the current limitations of the robot's onboard computing resources. Improvements may not be easily attainable, as they are closely related to costs and battery capacity, necessitating a trade-off compromise.
Evidence from Experimental Studies
The evidence seems to indicate that one strength of the robot could be the predictability of its behaviour, as when this aspect is missing, participants with ASD are less interested in the robot. In addition, the robot is an effective medium for improving interactions with others, reducing stress, and capturing attention. We should note that the number of studies considering these aspects is still limited. We also identified studies that accounted for the characteristics of participants with ASD during the interaction. Among them, autism severity is the most studied. Autism severity influences the quality of the interaction with the robot and is related to different behavioural manifestations. However, we should note that severity was associated with lesser eye gaze, facial expressions, and interactions in line with what one would expect when the severity levels are higher (Madipakkam et al., 2017; Scheeren et al., 2012). Children with ASD also show more maladaptive behaviours than TD when interacting with the robot, still as one would expect. The review revealed interesting findings regarding children's verbal abilities. Two studies suggested that children with weaker language skills may have less favourable interactions with the robot (Sandygulova et al., 2022; Schadenberg et al., 2020). However, one study suggested that the presence of parents could moderate this effect. Hence, future research should take into account the verbal skills of the ASD sample to better address this aspect. Based on these considerations, we might conclude that sole exposure to the social robot (intended as a panacea) could not reduce the maladaptive behaviours of the individual with ASD. Thus, the knowledge and experience of clinical therapists in ASD are crucial for its proper use. We believe it is relevant to report that one study indicated an association between severity and stimulus preference (Ali et al., 2021). Stimulus preference has also been linked to perceptive sensitivity, as demonstrated by two studies involving children, showing that perceptive sensitivity influences the interaction with the robot (Chevalier et al., 2017) and the outcomes of the robot-mediated intervention (Chevalier et al., 2022). Kumazaki and colleagues (2022a) also indicated that sensory sensitivity affects the interaction with the robot, even in older participants and adults. An atypical sensory experience is included among diagnostic criteria and occurs in 90% of individuals with ASD (Robertson & Baron-Cohen, 2017). Thus, this is another aspect that requires further consideration as the robot typically relies on sensory stimuli to attract attention or to interact. Overall, these results indicate that assessing language skills and sensory sensitivity is recommended in studies utilising robots with the ASD population. Regarding culture, the most relevant outcome indicated differences in engagement displays (Rudovic et al., 2017), which we suppose could be unrelated to the robot itself but could suggest the importance of validating behaviour assessments and identification (discussed in the previous section) accounting for cultural differences. The comparison between ASD and TD peers during interactions with robots reveals that children with ASD are more engaged with the robot, while adolescents with ASD tend to feel more comfortable. Notably, the latter group interacted with an android robot that resembled a human (Kumazaki et al., 2018a). Furthermore, two studies indicate that school-aged children with ASD exhibit a stronger preference for robots compared to preschoolers. Although a systematic review of prior literature did not identify an ideal age for using robots with individuals with ASD (Pennisi et al., 2016), these studies collectively suggest that utilising robots may be most suitable starting from school age. Nevertheless, they also emphasise the importance of employing age-appropriate robots. This is supported by Van den Berk-Smeekens et al. (2020), who suggested that the tasks implemented with the robot should align with the age-related interests of the participants to enhance likability. Future studies should delve deeper into this aspect. The comparisons between the interaction with human or robot agents during a task indicated mismatched results in terms of performance. However, studies converge on the evidence that a social robot is more engaging and entertaining than a human agent for children and adolescents. Therefore, we can conclude that this aspect represents one of the main strengths of using social robots for individuals with ASD.
Robot Design Suggestions from Trials in the Clinical Context
Studies related to this topic are limited. The main concern expressed by professionals who use robots for clinical practice focuses on the robot's capacity to adapt to situations by giving timely responses (Elbeleidy, 2021, Elbeleidy et al., 2021; Sochanski et al., 2021; Pot et al., 2009). As mentioned previously, online processing capacity is still limited, and most of the studies present results analysed offline after transferring the data to an external computing unit. Therefore, we suggest that future studies should consider increasing the autonomy of the robots, especially considering how interaction with individuals with ASD requires flexibility and timely actions (Cooper et al., 2018; Leaf et al., 2014). Autonomy should include predefined behaviours discussed with clinicians.
Potential Uses Highlighted by Feasibility Studies in the Clinical Field
We found several recent feasibility studies, some of which introduced new proposals for social robots in clinical practice for ASD. These studies highlighted various benefits, including easy transportability and service implementation, the use of haptic feedback, adaptability for nonverbal users, multi-robot interventions, both home-based and clinical long-term deployments, models for integrating the robot into mainstream settings, post-deployment refinement, preparing ASD patients for hospital procedures, employing semi-autonomous robots, and new intervention implementations. These studies offer new insights into the clinical applications of robots, and rigorous methods will help establish their effectiveness in clinical contexts. It is worth noting that social robots have found implementation within healthcare services and everyday settings associated with ASD, emerging as promising tools to enhance the person-environment fit in the daily lives of these individuals (Lai et al., 2020). The study by Syrdal et al. (2020) suggests the feasibility of utilising robots for extended periods in a clinical context without the presence of researchers. The work of Lemaignan and colleagues (2022) focuses on the special education context. Further research should aim to strengthen the evidence of the positive impact of long-term deployments in these two contexts. Long-term home-based deployment studies have moved beyond feasibility and are reported among intervention studies.
Interventions with Social Robots
Articles reported interventions that targeted a wide range of skills, and social skills are those of greater interest. We identified two studies that deployed the robot in home-based natural contexts for long-term intervention, which indicated improvements in the targeted skills. This evidence highlights the possibility of implementing the robot in a natural environment, avoiding researchers' actual presence. Therefore, highlighting a potential mainstream placement of robot-mediated interventions in individuals with ASD's daily contexts. Since other reviews discussed specific areas of intervention in detail, and for summary purposes, we refer to some of these for further information (e.g. Damianidou et al., 2020; Raptopoulou et al., 2021; Salimi et al., 2021). A notable limitation in current intervention studies is robots' implementation in highly structured settings. Therefore, studies could expand the available literature regarding robot-mediated interventions by considering more natural approaches. For instance, naturalistic developmental behavioural interventions consist of structuring the intervention in natural environments and implementing natural activities and reinforcements. This approach has shown positive outcomes for clinical practice. Considering these aspects could improve the generalization of targeted skills and promote a user-centred approach.
Limitations of this Systematic Review
Since we performed a systematic review, the results rely on the research questions, the search strategy, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria. As we aimed to answer the research questions and given the number of studies identified, we did not fully address some aspects, such as sample size and the design. However, we should note that these aspects have been discussed in the literature. We did not perform a meta-analysis; future studies should further quantify the effects of our findings accordingly. For instance, it would be interesting to measure if the underlined differences between participants with ASD and TD during the interaction with the robot also reach a statistical significance, likewise regarding the differences between the interaction with robots and a human agent.
Conclusion
This article presents a systematic review and critical analysis of the scientific literature regarding the use of social robots in the care of individuals with ASD. The studies provide a large body of evidence that social robots in clinical settings can serve as successful tools for improving the quality of services provided by clinicians. However, most of the studies focused on the development of the technology and lack of significant clinical evidence. Indeed, we found clinical relevance in only 18% of the articles in our literature searchFootnote 22. Therefore, more clinical evidence is needed to validate and confirm the applicability of these results in daily practice. To this end, we encourage new interdisciplinary research with a clinical focus that emphasises service development over technology.
Furthermore, we would like to see more training programs to support health and care professionals interested in learning and practising how to use robots in their profession. We suggest expanding the offer of Continuing Professional Development courses and introducing specific hands-on workshops in Universities’ health courses to enhance practical knowledge of robots in the clinical context.
Notes
The work of Ramírez-Duque et al. (2020) was considered both an "assessment" and "experiment" study based on the results reported by the authors.
Excluding old conferences, non-English articles, reviews, surveys, book chapters, conference proceedings, editorial letters, and articles without access.
References
*Indicates the article is included in the systematic review
*Ahmad, M. I., Shahid, S., & Tahir, A. (2017). Towards the applicability of NAO robot for children with autism in Pakistan. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 463–472). Springer, Cham.
*Albo-Canals, J., Martelo, A. B., Relkin, E., Hannon, D., Heerink, M., Heinemann, M., ... & Bers, M. U. (2018). A pilot study of the KIBO robot in children with severe ASD. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(3), 371–383.
*Ali, S., Mehmood, F., Ayaz, Y., Khan, M. J., Sadia, H., & Nawaz, R. (2020a). Comparing the effectiveness of different reinforcement stimuli in a robotic therapy for children with ASD. IEEE Access, 8, 13128-13137.
*Ali, S., Mehmood, F., Ayaz, Y., Sajid, M., Sadia, H., & Nawaz, R. (2021). An experimental trial: Multi-robot therapy for categorization of autism level using hidden Markov model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(3), 722-741.
*Ali, S., Mehmood, F., Dancey, D., Ayaz, Y., Khan, M. J., Naseer, N., ... & Nawaz, R. (2019). An adaptive multi-robot therapy for improving joint attention and imitation of ASD children. IEEE Access, 7, 81808–81825.
*Ali, S., Mehmood, F., Khan, M. J., Ayaz, Y., Asgher, U., Sadia, H., ... & Nawaz, R. (2020b). A preliminary study on effectiveness of a standardized Multi-Robot therapy for improvement in collaborative Multi-Human interaction of children with ASD. IEEE Access, 8, 109466–109474.
*Alnajjar, F., Cappuccio, M., Renawi, A., Mubin, O., & Loo, C. K. (2021). Personalized robot interventions for autistic children: an automated methodology for attention assessment. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(1), 67-82.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5, 5th edn. American Psychiatric Publishing.
*Amiriparian, S., Baird, A., Julka, S., Alcorn, A., Ottl, S., Petrović, S., et al. (2018). Recognition of echolalic autistic child vocalisations utilising convolutional recurrent neural networks. Proceedings of Interspeech, 2018, 2334–2338.
*Amirova, A., Rakhymbayeva, N., Zhanatkyzy, A., Telisheva, Z., & Sandygulova, A. (2022). Effects of parental involvement in robot-assisted autism therapy. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(1), 438-455.
*Anzalone, S. M., Tilmont, E., Boucenna, S., Xavier, J., Jouen, A. L., Bodeau, N., ... & MICHELANGELO Study Group. (2014). How children with autism spectrum disorder behave and explore the 4-dimensional (spatial 3D+ time) environment during a joint attention induction task with a robot. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(7), 814-826.
*Anzalone, S. M., Xavier, J., Boucenna, S., Billeci, L., Narzisi, A., Muratori, F., ... & Chetouani, M. (2019). Quantifying patterns of joint attention during human-robot interactions: An application for autism spectrum disorder assessment. Pattern Recognition Letters, 118, 42–50.
*Arent, K., Kruk-Lasocka, J., Niemiec, T., & Szczepanowski, R. (2019). Social robot in diagnosis of autism among preschool children. In 2019 24th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR) (pp. 652–656). IEEE.
*Arent, K., Brown, D. J., Kruk-Lasocka, J., Niemiec, T. L., Pasieczna, A. H., Standen, P. J., & Szczepanowski, R. (2022). The use of social robots in the diagnosis of autism in preschool children. Applied Sciences, 12(17), 8399.
*Askari, F., Feng, H., Sweeny, T. D., & Mahoor, M. H. (2018, August). A pilot study on facial expression recognition ability of autistic children using ryan, a rear-projected humanoid robot. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 790–795). IEEE.
*Baird, A., Amiriparian, S., Cummins, N., Alcorn, A., Batliner, A., Pugachevskiy, S., et al. (2017). Automatic classification of autistic child vocalisations: A novel database and results. Proceedings of Interspeech, 2017, 849–853.
*Baraka, K., Couto, M., Melo, F. S., Paiva, A., & Veloso, M. (2022). “Sequencing matters”: Investigating suitable action sequences in robot-assisted autism therapy. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, 784249.
*Barakova, E. I., Bajracharya, P., Willemsen, M., Lourens, T., & Huskens, B. (2015). Long‐term LEGO therapy with humanoid robot for children with ASD. Expert Systems, 32(6), 698-709.
*Barnes, J. A., Park, C. H., Howard, A., & Jeon, M. (2021). Child-robot interaction in a musical dance game: an exploratory comparison study between typically developing children and children with autism. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(3), 249-266.
*Beaudoin, A. J., Pedneault, F., Houle, M., Bilodeau, C., Gauvin, M. P., Groleau, D., ... & Couture, M. (2021). Case study assessing the feasibility of using a wearable haptic device or humanoid robot to facilitate transitions in occupational therapy sessions for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, 8, 20556683211049041.
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.
*Bekele ET, Lahiri U, Swanson AR, Crittendon JA, Warren ZE, Sarkar N. A step towards developing adaptive robot-mediated intervention architecture (ARIA) for children with autism. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 21(2), 289–99. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2230188
*Bekele, E., Crittendon, J. A., Swanson, A., Sarkar, N., & Warren, Z. E. (2014). Pilot clinical application of an adaptive robotic system for young children with autism. Autism, 18(5), 598-608.
*Bharatharaj, J., Huang, L., Al-Jumaily, A., Elara, M. R., & Krägeloh, C. (2017a). Investigating the effects of robot-assisted therapy among children with autism spectrum disorder using bio-markers. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 234, No. 1, p. 012017). IOP Publishing.
*Bharatharaj, J., Huang, L., Al-Jumaily, A., Mohan, R. E., & Krägeloh, C. (2017b). Sociopsychological and physiological effects of a robot-assisted therapy for children with autism. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 14(5), 1729881417736895.
*Bharatharaj, J., Huang, L., Krägeloh, C., Elara, M. R., & Al-Jumaily, A. (2018). Social engagement of children with autism spectrum disorder in interaction with a parrot-inspired therapeutic robot. Procedia Computer Science, 133, 368-376.
Cabibihan, J. J., Javed, H., Ang, M., & Aljunied, S. M. (2013). Why robots? A survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(4), 593–618.
*Cai, H., Fang, Y., Ju, Z., Costescu, C., David, D., Billing, E., ... & Liu, H. (2018). Sensing-enhanced therapy system for assessing children with autism spectrum disorders: A feasibility study. IEEE Sensors Journal, 19(4), 1508–1518.
*Cao, W., Song, W., Li, X., Zheng, S., Zhang, G., Wu, Y., ... & Chen, J. (2019). Interaction with social robots: Improving gaze toward face but not necessarily joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1503.
*Cao, H. L., Simut, R. E., Desmet, N., De Beir, A., Van De Perre, G., Vanderborght, B., & Vanderfaeillie, J. (2020). Robot-assisted joint attention: A comparative study between children with autism spectrum disorder and typically developing children in interaction with NAO. IEEE Access, 8, 223325-223334.
*Cao, H. L., Simut, R. E., Krepel, N., Vanderborght, B., & Vanderfaeillie, J. (2022). Could NAO robot function as model demonstrating joint attention skills for children with autism spectrum disorder? An exploratory study. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 19(04), 2240006.
*Carlson, K., Wong, A. H. Y., Dung, T. A., Wong, A. C. Y., Tan, Y. K., & Wykowska, A. (2018, November). Training autistic children on joint attention skills with a robot. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 86–92). Springer.
*Chevalier, P., Raiola, G., Martin, J. C., Isableu, B., Bazile, C., & Tapus, A. (2017). Do sensory preferences of children with autism impact an limitation task with a robot?. In 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI (pp. 177–186). IEEE.
*Chevalier, P., Ghiglino, D., Floris, F., Priolo, T., & Wykowska, A. (2022). Visual and hearing sensitivity affect robot-based training for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 748853.
*Chung, E. Y. H. (2019). Robotic intervention program for enhancement of social engagement among children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 31(4), 419-434.
*Chung, E. Y. H. (2021). Robot-mediated social skill intervention programme for children with autism spectrum disorder: An ABA time-series study. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(5), 1095-1107.
*Clabaugh, C., Becerra, D., Deng, E., Ragusa, G., & Matarić, M. (2018). Month-long, in-home case study of a socially assistive robot for children with autism spectrum disorder. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 87–88).
*Clabaugh, C., Mahajan, K., Jain, S., Pakkar, R., Becerra, D., Shi, Z., ... & Matarić, M. (2019a). Long-term personalization of an in-home socially assistive robot for children with autism spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 110.
*Clabaugh, C., Mahajan, K., Jain, S., Pakkar, R., Becerra, D., Shi, Z., ... & Matarić, M. (2019b). Long-term personalization of an in-home socially assistive robot for children with autism spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 110.
Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2012). Social responsiveness scale–second edition (SRS-2). Western Psychological Services.
Conti, D., Trubia, G., Buono, S., Di Nuovo, A., & Di Nuovo, S. (2020). Brief review of robotics in low-functioning autism therapy. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (Vol. 2730). Tilburg University.
Conti, D., Trubia, G., Buono, S., Di Nuovo, S., & Di Nuovo, A. (2021). An empirical study on integrating a small humanoid robot to support the therapy of children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. Interaction Studies, 22(2), 177–211.
Cooper, K., Loades, M. E., & Russell, A. (2018). Adapting psychological therapies for autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 45, 43–50.
*Costa, S., Lehmann, H., Dautenhahn, K., Robins, B., & Soares, F. (2015). Using a humanoid robot to elicit body awareness and appropriate physical interaction in children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(2), 265-278.
*Costa, A. P., Charpiot, L., Lera, F. R., Ziafati, P., Nazarikhorram, A., Van Der Torre, L., & Steffgen, G. (2018). More attention and less repetitive and stereotyped behaviors using a robot with children with autism. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 534–539). IEEE.
*Costescu, C. A., Vanderborght, B., & David, D. O. (2016). Beliefs, emotions, and behaviors-differences between children with asd and typically developing children. A robot-enhanced task. Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 16(2), 221–237.
*Costescu, C. A., Vanderborght, B., & David, D. O. (2017). Robot-enhanced CBT for dysfunctional emotions in social situations for children with ASD. Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 17(2), 119–132.
Damianidou, D., Eidels, A., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2020). The use of robots in social communications and interactions for individuals with ASD: A systematic review. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 4(4), 357–388.
Dautenhahn, K., Nehaniv, C. L., Walters, M. L., Robins, B., Kose-Bagci, H., Assif, N., & Blow, M. (2009). KASPAR–a minimally expressive humanoid robot for human–robot interaction research. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 6(3–4), 369–397.
*David, D. O., Costescu, C. A., Matu, S., Szentagotai, A., & Dobrean, A. (2018). Developing joint attention for children with autism in robot-enhanced therapy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(5), 595-605.
*David, D. O., Costescu, C. A., Matu, S., Szentagotai, A., & Dobrean, A. (2020). Effects of a robot-enhanced intervention for children with ASD on teaching turn-taking skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(1), 29-62.
*De Korte, M. W., van den Berk-Smeekens, I., van Dongen-Boomsma, M., Oosterling, I. J., Den Boer, J. C., Barakova, E. I., ... & Staal, W. G. (2020). Self-initiations in young children with autism during Pivotal Response Treatment with and without robot assistance. Autism, 24(8), 2117–2128.
*Dehkordi, P. S., Moradi, H., Mahmoudi, M., & Pouretemad, H. R. (2015). The design, development, and deployment of roboparrot for screening autistic children. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(4), 513-522.
*Del Coco, M., Leo, M., Carcagnì, P., Fama, F., Spadaro, L., Ruta, L., ... & Distante, C. (2018). Study of mechanisms of social interaction stimulation in autism spectrum disorder by assisted humanoid robot. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 10(4), 993–1004.
*Desideri, L., Negrini, M., Cutrone, M. C., Rouame, A., Malavasi, M., Hoogerwerf, E. J., ... & Di Sarro, R. (2017). Exploring the use of a humanoid robot to engage children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In Harnessing the Power of Technology to Improve Lives (pp. 501–509). IOS Press.
*Desideri, L., Negrini, M., Malavasi, M., Tanzini, D., Rouame, A., Cutrone, M. C., ... & Hoogerwerf, E. J. (2018). Using a humanoid robot as a complement to interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder: A pilot study. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 2(3), 273–285.
*Desideri, L., Cesario, L., Gherardini, A., Fiordelmondo, V., Morganti, A., Malavasi, M., & Hoogerwerf, E. J. (2020). Using a humanoid robot to promote inclusion of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders in mainstream classrooms: An overview of the RoBò service delivery approach. Life Span & Disability, 23(1), 41–51.
*Dinet, J., Verdel, H., Kumazaki, H., Terada, K., Vitel, S., & Zender, E. (2021). A hybrid robotics system for children with autism: a longitudinal study of social interaction inside the classroom. In Proceedings of the 17th “Ergonomie et Informatique Avancée” Conference (pp. 1–8).
*Di Nuovo, A., Conti, D., Trubia, G., Buono, S., & Di Nuovo, S. (2018). Deep learning systems for estimating visual attention in robot-assisted therapy of children with autism and intellectual disability. Robotics, 7(2), 25.
*Di Nuovo, A., Bamforth, J., Conti, D., Sage, K., Ibbotson, R., Clegg, J., ... & Arnold, K. (2020). An explorative study on robotics for supporting children with autism spectrum disorder during clinical procedures. In Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 189–191).
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.
*Duquette, A., Michaud, F., & Mercier, H. (2008). Exploring the use of a mobile robot as an imitation agent with children with low-functioning autism. Autonomous Robots, 24(2), 147-157.
*Elbeleidy, S. (2021). Towards effective robot-teleoperation in therapy for children with autism. In Interaction Design and Children (pp. 633–636).
*Elbeleidy, S., Rosen, D., Liu, D., Shick, A., & Williams, T. (2021). Analyzing teleoperation interface usage of robots in therapy for children with autism. In Interaction Design and Children (pp. 112–118).
*Fachantidis, N., Syriopoulou-Delli, C. K., & Zygopoulou, M. (2020). Τhe effectiveness of socially assistive robotics in children with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 66(2), 113-121.
*Fassina, G., Santos, L., Geminiani, A., Caglio, A., Annunziata, S., Olivieri, I., & Pedrocchi, A. (2022). Development of an interactive total body robot enhanced imitation therapy for ASD children. In 2022 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Fournier, K. A., Hass, C. J., Naik, S. K., Lodha, N., & Cauraugh, J. H. (2010). Motor coordination in autism spectrum disorders: A synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(10), 1227–1240.
*Ghiglino, D., Chevalier, P., Floris, F., Priolo, T., & Wykowska, A. (2021). Follow the white robot: Efficacy of robot-assistive training for children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 86, 101822.
*Ghorbandaei Pour, A., Taheri, A., Alemi, M., & Meghdari, A. (2018). Human–robot facial expression reciprocal interaction platform: case studies on children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(2), 179-198.
*Giannopulu, I. (2013). Multimodal cognitive nonverbal and verbal interactions: the neurorehabilitation of autistic children via mobile toy robots. IARIA International Journal of Advances in Life Sciences, 5(3-4), 214–222.
*Giannopulu, I., & Watanabe, T. (2016). Give Children toys robots to educate and/or neuroreeducate: the example of PEKOPPA. In New Trends in Medical and Service Robots (pp. 205–215). Springer.
*Giannopulu, I., Montreynaud, V., & Watanabe, T. (2016). Minimalistic toy robot to analyze a scenery of speaker–listener condition in autism. Cognitive Processing, 17(2), 195-203.
*Giannopulu, I., Terada, K., & Watanabe, T. (2018). Communication using robots: a Perception-action scenario in moderate ASD. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 30(5), 603-613.
*Giannopulu, I., Etournaud, A., Terada, K., Velonaki, M., & Watanabe, T. (2020). Ordered interpersonal synchronisation in ASD children via robots. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1-10.
*Golestan, S., Soleiman, P., & Moradi, H. (2017). Feasibility of using sphero in rehabilitation of children with autism in social and communication skills. In 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR) (pp. 989–994). IEEE.
Grossard, C., Palestra, G., Xavier, J., Chetouani, M., Grynszpan, O., & Cohen, D. (2018). ICT and autism care: State of the art. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 31(6), 474–483.
*Holeva, V., Nikopoulou, V. A., Lytridis, C., Bazinas, C., Kechayas, P., Sidiropoulos, G., et al. (2022). Effectiveness of a robot-assisted psychological intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 54(3), 1–17.
*Huijnen, C. A., Verreussel-Willen, H. A., Lexis, M. A., & de Witte, L. P. (2021). Robot KASPAR as mediator in making contact with children with Autism: A pilot study. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(2), 237-249.
*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. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 16(5), 345-356.
*Huskens, B., Palmen, A., Van der Werff, M., Lourens, T., & Barakova, E. (2015). Improving collaborative play between children with autism spectrum disorders and their siblings: The effectiveness of a robot-mediated intervention based on Lego® therapy. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(11), 3746-3755.
*Ishak, N. I., Yusof, H. M., Ramlee, M. R. H., Na'im Sidek, S., & Rusli, N. (2019). Modules of interaction for ASD children using rero robot (Humanoid). In 2019 7th International Conference on Mechatronics Engineering (ICOM) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
*Ivani, A. S., Giubergia, A., Santos, L., Geminiani, A., Annunziata, S., Caglio, A., ... & Pedrocchi, A. (2022). A gesture recognition algorithm in a robot therapy for ASD children. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 74, 103512.
*Javed, H., & Park, C. H. (2020a). Behavior-based risk detection of autism spectrum disorder through child-robot interaction. In Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 275–277).
*Javed, H., Burns, R., Jeon, M., Howard, A. M., & Park, C. H. (2020b). A robotic framework to facilitate sensory experiences for children with autism spectrum disorder: A preliminary study. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 9(1), 1-26.
*Javed, H., Lee, W., & Park, C. H. (2020c). Toward an automated measure of social engagement for children with autism spectrum disorder—a personalized computational modeling approach. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7, 43.
*Jimenez, F., Yoshikawa, T., Furuhashi, T., Kanoh, M., Nakamura, T. (2017). Feasibility of collaborative learning and work between robots and children with autism spectrum disorders. In: Otake, M., Kurahashi, S., Ota, Y., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10091. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2_32
*Jouaiti, M., Zehnder, E., & Charpillet, F. (2022). The sound of actuators in children with ASD, beneficial or disruptive? In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 36–44). Springer Nature Switzerland.
*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.
*Kostrubiec, V., & Kruck, J. (2020). Collaborative research project: Developing and testing a robot-assisted intervention for children with autism. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7, 37.
*Kumazaki, H., Warren, Z., Corbett, B. A., Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Higashida, H., ... & Kikuchi, M. (2017a). Android robot-mediated mock job interview sessions for young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A pilot study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 169.
*Kumazaki, H., Warren, Z., Muramatsu, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Miyao, M., ... & Kikuchi, M. (2017b). A pilot study for robot appearance preferences among high-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorder: Implications for therapeutic use. PloS One, 12(10), e0186581.
*Kumazaki, H., Warren, Z., Swanson, A., Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Takahashi, H., ... & Kikuchi, M. (2018a). Can robotic systems promote self-disclosure in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder? A pilot study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 36.
*Kumazaki, H., Yoshikawa, Y., Yoshimura, Y., Ikeda, T., Hasegawa, C., Saito, D. N., ... & Kikuchi, M. (2018b). The impact of robotic intervention on joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorders. Molecular Autism, 9(1), 1–10.
*Kumazaki, H., Muramatsu, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Corbett, B. A., Matsumoto, Y., Higashida, H., ... & Kikuchi, M. (2019a). Job interview training targeting nonverbal communication using an android robot for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 23(6), 1586–1595.
*Kumazaki, H., Muramatsu, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Ishiguro, H., Mimura, M., & Kikuchi, M. (2019b). Role-play-based guidance for job interviews using an android robot for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 239.
*Kumazaki, H., Muramatsu, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Yoshimura, Y., Ikeda, T., Hasegawa, C., ... & Kikuchi, M. (2019c). Brief report: A novel system to evaluate autism spectrum disorders using two humanoid robots. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(4), 1709–1716.
*Kumazaki, H., Warren, Z., Swanson, A., Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Yoshimura, Y., ... & Kikuchi, M. (2019d). Brief report: evaluating the utility of varied technological agents to elicit social attention from children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(4), 1700–1708.
*Kumazaki, H., Muramatsu, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Haraguchi, H., Sono, T., Matsumoto, Y., ... & Mimura, M. (2021a). Enhancing communication skills of individuals with autism spectrum disorders while maintaining social distancing using two tele-operated robots. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 1641.
*Kumazaki, H., Sumioka, H., Muramatsu, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Shimaya, J., Iwanaga, R., ... & Mimura, M. (2021b). Brief report: The effectiveness of hugging a huggable device before having a conversation with an unfamiliar person for autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(7), 3294–3303.
*Kumazaki, H., Muramatsu, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Kuwata, M., Takata, K., ... & Mimura, M. (2022a). Differences in the optimal motion of android robots for the ease of communications among individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 883371.
*Kumazaki, H., Muramatsu, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Takata, K., Ishiguro, H., & Mimura, M. (2022b). Android Robot Promotes Disclosure of Negative Narratives by Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorders. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 899664.
Lai, M. C., Anagnostou, E., Wiznitzer, M., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2020). Evidence-based support for autistic people across the lifespan: Maximising potential, minimising barriers, and optimising the person–environment fit. The Lancet Neurology, 19(5), 434–451.
*Lakatos, G., Wood, L. J., Syrdal, D. S., Robins, B., Zaraki, A., & Dautenhahn, K. (2021). Robot-mediated intervention can assist children with autism to develop visual perspective taking skills. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 12(1), 87-101.
Leaf, J. B., Leaf, R., Taubman, M., McEachin, J., & Delmolino, L. (2014). Comparison of flexible prompt fading to error correction for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 26(2), 203–224.
*Lecciso, F., Levante, A., Fabio, R. A., Caprì, T., Leo, M., Carcagnì, P., et al. (2021). Emotional expression in children with ASD: A pre-study on a two-group pre-post-test design comparing robot-based and computer-based training. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 678052.
*Lemaignan, S., Newbutt, N., Rice, L., & Daly, J. (2022). “It’s important to think of Pepper as a teaching aid or resource external to the classroom”: A social robot in a school for autistic children. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–22.
*Li, J., & Planting, J. (2020). How culture and presence of a robot affect teachers' use of touch with autistic children. In Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 337–339).
*Li, J., Davison, D., Alcorn, A., Williams, A., Dimitrijevic, S. B., Petrovic, S., ... & Evers, V. (2020a). Non-participatory user-centered design of accessible teacher-teleoperated robot and tablets for minimally verbal autistic children. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (pp. 1–9).
*Li, J., Petrovic, S., Davison, D., Babovic Dimitrijevic, S., Chevalier, P., & Evers, V. (2020b). Addressing attention difficulties in autistic children using multimodal cues from a humanoid robot. In Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 334–336).
Lord, C., et al. (2000). The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 205–223.
*Louie, W. Y. G., Korneder, J., Abbas, I., & Pawluk, C. (2021). A study on an applied behavior analysis-based robot-mediated listening comprehension intervention for ASD. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 12(1), 31-46.
*Lytridis, C., Papadopoulou, C. I., Papakostas, G. A., Kaburlasos, V. G., Nikopoulou, V. A., Kerasidou, M. D., & Dalivigkas, N. (2020). Robot-Assisted autism spectrum disorder (ASD) interventions: A multi-robot approach. In 2020 International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.
Madipakkam, A. R., Rothkirch, M., Dziobek, I., & Sterzer, P. (2017). Unconscious avoidance of eye contact in autism spectrum disorder. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–6.
*Marino, F., Chilà, P., Sfrazzetto, S. T., Carrozza, C., Crimi, I., Failla, C., ... & Pioggia, G. (2020). Outcomes of a robot-assisted social-emotional understanding intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(6), 1973–1987.
*Marinoiu, E., Zanfir, M., Olaru, V., & Sminchisescu, C. (2018). 3d human sensing, action and emotion recognition in robot assisted therapy of children with autism. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2158–2167).
Mazza, M., Pino, M. C., Vagnetti, R., Filocamo, A., Attanasio, M., Calvarese, A., & Valenti, M. (2021). Intensive intervention for adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: Comparison of three rehabilitation treatments. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 25(1), 28–36.
*Mehmood, F., Ayaz, Y., Ali, S., Amadeu, R. D. C., & Sadia, H. (2019). Dominance in visual space of ASD children using multi-robot joint attention integrated distributed imitation system. IEEE Access, 7, 168815-168827.
*Mehmood, F., Ali, S., Ayaz, Y., Khan, M. J., & Asgher, U. (2021a). Comparing effect of active vs. passive robotic interaction on joint attention of children with ASD. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 305–311). Springer.
*Mehmood, F., Mahzoon, H., Yoshikawa, Y., Ishiguro, H., Sadia, H., Ali, S., & Ayaz, Y. (2021b). Attentional behavior of children with ASD in response to robotic agents. IEEE Access, 9, 31946-31955.
Ming, X., Brimacombe, M., & Wagner, G. C. (2007). Prevalence of motor impairment in autism spectrum disorders. Brain and Development, 29(9), 565–570.
*Moghadas, M., & Moradi, H. (2018). Analyzing human-robot interaction using machine vision for autism screening. In 2018 6th RSI international conference on robotics and mechatronics (IcRoM) (pp. 572–576). IEEE.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
*Pakkar, R., Clabaugh, C., Lee, R., Deng, E., & Mataricć, M. J. (2019). Designing a socially assistive robot for long-term in-home use for children with autism spectrum disorders. In 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1–7). IEEE.
*Peca, A., Simut, R., Pintea, S., & Vanderborght, B. (2015). Are children with ASD more prone to test the intentions of the Robonova robot compared to a human? International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 629-639.
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(2), 165–183.
*Petric, F., Miklić, D., Cepanec, M., Cvitanović, P., & Kovačić, Z. (2017). Functional imitation task in the context of robot-assisted autism spectrum disorder diagnostics: Preliminary investigations. In 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1471–1478). IEEE.
*Pinto-Bernal, M. J., Cespedes, N., Castro, P., Munera, M., & Cifuentes, C. A. (2022). Physical human-robot interaction influence in ASD therapy through an affordable soft social robot. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 105(3), 67.
*Pliasa, S., & Fachantidis, N. (2019). Can a robot be an efficient mediator in promoting dyadic activities among children with autism spectrum disorders and children of typical development? In Proceedings of the 9th Balkan Conference on Informatics (pp. 1–6).
*Pliasa, S., Fachantidis, N. (2021). Mobile technologies serious games for the development of social skills in children with autism spectrum disorders, in enhanced with socially assistive robots interventions. In: Auer, M. E., Tsiatsos, T. (eds) Internet of Things, Infrastructures and Mobile Applications. IMCL 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1192. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49932-7_58
*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.
*Pop, C. A., Simut, R. E., Pintea, S., Saldien, J., Rusu, A. S., Vanderfaeillie, J., ... & Vanderborght, B. (2013a). Social robots vs. computer display: Does the way social stories are delivered make a difference for their effectiveness on ASD children? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(3), 381–401.
*Pop, C. A., Simut, R., Pintea, S., Saldien, J., Rusu, A., David, D., ... & Vanderborght, B. (2013b). Can the social robot Probo help children with autism to identify situation-based emotions? A series of single case experiments. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 10(03), 1350025.
Pot, E., Monceaux, J., Gelin, R., & Maisonnier, B. (2009, September). Choregraphe: a graphical tool for humanoid robot programming. In RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 46–51). IEEE.
*Rakhymbayeva, N., Amirova, A., & Sandygulova, A. (2021). A long-term engagement with a social robot for autism therapy. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 180.
*Ramírez-Duque, A. A., Bastos, T., Munera, M., Cifuentes, C. A., & Frizera-Neto, A. (2020). Robot-Assisted Intervention for children with special needs: A comparative assessment for autism screening. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 127, 103484.
Raptopoulou, A., Komnidis, A., Bamidis, P. D., & Astaras, A. (2021). Human–robot interaction for social skill development in children with ASD: A literature review. Healthcare Technology Letters, 8(4), 90–96.
Robertson, C. E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2017). Sensory perception in autism. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(11), 671–684.
*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.
*Rudovic, O., Lee, J., Dai, M., Schuller, B., & Picard, R. W. (2018a). Personalized machine learning for robot perception of affect and engagement in autism therapy. Science Robotics, 3(19), eaao6760.
*Rudovic, O., Utsumi, Y., Lee, J., Hernandez, J., Ferrer, E. C., Schuller, B., & Picard, R. W. (2018b). CultureNet: a deep learning approach for engagement intensity estimation from face images of children with autism. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 339–346). IEEE.
*Rudovic, O., Zhang, M., Schuller, B., & Picard, R. (2019). Multi-modal active learning from human data: A deep reinforcement learning approach. In 2019 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (pp. 6–15).
Saleh, M. A., Hanapiah, F. A., & Hashim, H. (2021). Robot applications for autism: A comprehensive review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(6), 580–602.
Salimi, Z., Jenabi, E., & Bashirian, S. (2021). Are social robots ready yet to be used in care and therapy of autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 129, 1–16.
*Sandygulova, A., Zhexenova, Z., Tleubayev, B., Nurakhmetova, A., Zhumabekova, D., Assylgali, I., ... & Zhakenova, A. (2019). Interaction design and methodology of robot-assisted therapy for children with severe ASD and ADHD. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 10(1), 330–345.
*Sandygulova, A., Amirova, A., Telisheva, Z., Zhanatkyzy, A., & Rakhymbayeva, N. (2022). Individual differences of children with autism in robot-assisted autism therapy. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 43–52). IEEE.
Sani-Bozkurt, S., & Bozkus-Genc, G. (2023). Social robots for joint attention development in autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 70(5), 625–643.
*Scassellati, B., Boccanfuso, L., Huang, C. M., Mademtzi, M., Qin, M., Salomons, N., ... & Shic, F. (2018). Improving social skills in children with ASD using a long-term, in-home social robot. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat7544.
Scassellati, B., Matarić, M., & Admoni, H. (2012). Robots for use in autism research. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 14(1), 275–294.
*Schadenberg, B. R., Reidsma, D., Heylen, D. K., & Evers, V. (2020). Differences in spontaneous interactions of autistic children in an interaction with an adult and humanoid robot. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7, 28.
*Schadenberg, B. R., Reidsma, D., Evers, V., Davison, D. P., Li, J. J., Heylen, D. K., ... & Pellicano, E. (2021). Predictable robots for autistic children—variance in robot behaviour, idiosyncrasies in autistic children’s characteristics, and child–robot engagement. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 28(5), 1–42.
Scheeren, A. M., Koot, H. M., & Begeer, S. (2012). Social interaction style of children and adolescents with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(10), 2046–2055.
Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., DeVellis, R. F., & Daly, K. (1980). Toward objective classification of childhood autism: Childhood autism rating scale (CARS). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10(1), 91–103.
Shen, J., Ainger, E., Alcorn, A. M., Dimitrijevic, S. B., Baird, A., Chevalier, P., et al. (2018). Autism data goes big: A publicly-accessible multi-modal database of child interactions for behavioural and machine learning research. INSAR 2018 Annual Meeting. https://insar.confex.com/insar/2018/webprogram/Paper27764.html
*Short, E. S., Deng, E. C., Feil-Seifer, D. J., & Mataric, M. J. (2017). Understanding agency in interactions between children with autism and socially assistive robots. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 6(3), 21–47.
*Silva, K., Lima, M., Santos-Magalhães, A., Fafiães, C., & de Sousa, L. (2018a). Can dogs assist children with severe autism spectrum disorder in complying with challenging demands? An exploratory experiment with a live and a robotic dog. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 24(3), 238-242.
*Silva, V., Soares, F., Esteves, J. S., & Pereira, A. P. (2018b). Building a hybrid approach for a game scenario using a tangible interface in human robot interaction. In Joint International Conference on Serious Games (pp. 241–247). Springer.
*Silva, K., Lima, M., Santos-Magalhães, A., Fafiães, C., & de Sousa, L. (2019). Living and robotic dogs as elicitors of social communication behavior and regulated emotional responding in individuals with Autism and severe language delay: A preliminary comparative study. Anthrozoös, 32(1), 23-33.
*Šimleša, S., Stošić, J., Bilić, I., & Cepanec, M. (2022). Imitation, focus of attention and social behaviours of children with autism spectrum disorder in interaction with robots. Interaction Studies, 23(1), 1-20.
*Simut, R., Van de Perre, G., Costescu, C., Saldien, J., Vanderfaeillie, J., David, D., ... & Vanderborght, B. (2016). Probogotchi: A novel edutainment device as a bridge for interaction between a child with ASD and the typically developed sibling. Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 16(1), 91–112.
*So, W. C., Wong, M. Y., Cabibihan, J. J., Lam, C. Y., Chan, R. Y., & Qian, H. H. (2016). Using robot animation to promote gestural skills in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(6), 632-646.
*So, W. C., Wong, M. K. Y., Lam, C. K. Y., Lam, W. Y., Chui, A. T. F., Lee, T. L., ... & Fok, D. C. W. (2018a). Using a social robot to teach gestural recognition and production in children with autism spectrum disorders. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(6), 527–539.
*So, W. C., Wong, M. K. Y., Lam, W. Y., Cheng, C. H., Yang, J. H., Huang, Y., ... & Lee, C. C. (2018b). Robot-based intervention may reduce delay in the production of intransitive gestures in Chinese-speaking preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. Molecular Autism, 9(1), 1–16.
*So, W. C., Cheng, C. H., Lam, W. Y., Wong, T., Law, W. W., Huang, Y., ... & Wong, W. (2019a). Robot-based play-drama intervention may improve the narrative abilities of Chinese-speaking preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 95, 103515.
*So, W. C., Wong, M. K. Y., Lam, W. Y., Cheng, C. H., Ku, S. Y., Lam, K. Y., ... & Wong, W. L. (2019b). Who is a better teacher for children with autism? Comparison of learning outcomes between robot-based and human-based interventions in gestural production and recognition. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 86, 62–75.
*So, W. C., Cheng, C. H., Lam, W. Y., Huang, Y., Ng, K. C., Tung, H. C., & Wong, W. (2020). A robot-based play-drama intervention may improve the joint attention and functional play behaviors of chinese-speaking preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder: a pilot study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(2), 467-481.
*So, W. C., Cheng, C. H., Law, W. W., Wong, T., Lee, C., Kwok, F. Y., et al. (2023). Robot dramas may improve joint attention of Chinese-speaking low-functioning children with autism: stepped wedge trials. Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 18(2), 195–204.
*Sochanski, M., Snyder, K., Korneder, J., & Louie, W. Y. G. (2021). Therapists’ perspectives after implementing a robot into autism therapy. In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1216–1223). IEEE.
*Srinivasan, S. M., Eigsti, I. M., Gifford, T., & Bhat, A. N. (2016a). The effects of embodied rhythm and robotic interventions on the spontaneous and responsive verbal communication skills of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A further outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 27, 73-87.
*Srinivasan, S. M., Eigsti, I. M., Neelly, L., & Bhat, A. N. (2016b). The effects of embodied rhythm and robotic interventions on the spontaneous and responsive social attention patterns of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD): A pilot randomized controlled trial. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 27, 54-72.
*Srinivasan, S. M., Kaur, M., Park, I. K., Gifford, T. D., Marsh, K. L., & Bhat, A. N. (2015a). The effects of rhythm and robotic interventions on the imitation/praxis, interpersonal synchrony, and motor performance of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD): a pilot randomized controlled trial. Autism Research and Treatment, 2015, 736516.
*Srinivasan, S. M., Park, I. K., Neelly, L. B., & Bhat, A. N. (2015b). A comparison of the effects of rhythm and robotic interventions on repetitive behaviors and affective states of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 18, 51-63.
*Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Robins, B., Karakosta, E., & Jones, N. C. (2020). Kaspar in the wild: Experiences from deploying a small humanoid robot in a nursery school for children with autism. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 11(1), 301-326.
*Taheri, A., Meghdari, A., Alemi, M., & Pouretemad, H. (2018a). Clinical interventions of social humanoid robots in the treatment of a set of high-and low-functioning autistic Iranian twins. Scientia Iranica, 25(3), 1197-1214.
*Taheri, A., Meghdari, A., Alemi, M., & Pouretemad, H. (2018b). Human–robot interaction in autism treatment: a case study on three pairs of autistic children as twins, siblings, and classmates. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(1), 93-113.
*Taheri, A., Meghdari, A., & Mahoor, M. H. (2021a). A close look at the imitation performance of children with autism and typically developing children using a robotic system. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(5), 1125-1147.
*Taheri, A., Shariati, A., Heidari, R., Shahab, M., Alemi, M., & Meghdari, A. (2021b). Impacts of using a social robot to teach music to children with low-functioning autism. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 12(1), 256-275.
*Tapus, A., Peca, A., Aly, A., Pop, C., Jisa, L., Pintea, S., ... & David, D. O. (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.
*Telisheva, Z., Amirova, A., Rakhymbayeva, N., Zhanatkyzy, A., & Sandygulova, A. (2022). The quantitative case-by-case analyses of the socio-emotional outcomes of children with ASD in robot-assisted autism therapy. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 6(6), 46.
*Tobar, J., Delgado, J., Muñoz, B., Bacca, B., Caicedo, E. (2021). Portable robotic modular kit for teaching gestures in children with ASD. In: Botto Tobar, M., Cruz, H., Díaz Cadena, A. (eds) Recent Advances in Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Energy. CIT 2020. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 763. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72212-8_16
*Trombly, M., Shahverdi, P., Huang, N., Chen, Q., Korneder, J., & Louie, W. Y. G. (2022). Robot-mediated group instruction for children with ASD: a pilot study. In 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1506–1513). IEEE.
*van den Berk-Smeekens, I., van Dongen-Boomsma, M., De Korte, M. W., Den Boer, J. C., Oosterling, I. J., Peters-Scheffer, N. C., ... & Glennon, J. C. (2020). Adherence and acceptability of a robot-assisted Pivotal Response Treatment protocol for children with autism spectrum disorder. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–11.
*van den Berk-Smeekens, I., de Korte, M. W. P., van Dongen-Boomsma, M., Oosterling, I. J., den Boer, J. C., Barakova, E. I., et al. (2022). Pivotal response treatment with and without robotassistance for children with autism: a randomized controlled trial. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(12), 1871–1883.
*van Otterdijk, M. T., de Korte, M. W., van den Berk-Smeekens, I., Hendrix, J., van Dongen-Boomsma, M., Den Boer, J. C., ... & Barakova, E. I. (2020). The effects of long-term child–robot interaction on the attention and the engagement of children with autism. Robotics, 9(4), 79.
*van Straten, C. L., Smeekens, I., Barakova, E., Glennon, J., Buitelaar, J., & Chen, A. (2018). Effects of robots’ intonation and bodily appearance on robot-mediated communicative treatment outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorder. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 22(2), 379-390.
*Vanderborght, B., Simut, R., Saldien, J., Pop, C., Rusu, A. S., Pintea, S., ... & David, D. O. (2012). Using the social robot probo as a social story telling agent for children with ASD. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 348–372.
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.
*Wainer, J., Dautenhahn, K., Robins, B., & Amirabdollahian, F. (2014a). 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.
*Wainer, J., Robins, B., Amirabdollahian, F., & Dautenhahn, K. (2014b). Using the humanoid robot KASPAR to autonomously play triadic games and facilitate collaborative play among children with autism. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 6(3), 183-199.
*Warren, Z., Zheng, Z., Das, S., Young, E. M., Swanson, A., Weitlauf, A., & Sarkar, N. (2015a). Brief report: development of a robotic intervention platform for young children with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3870-3876.
*Warren, Z. E., Zheng, Z., Swanson, A. R., Bekele, E., Zhang, L., Crittendon, J. A., ... & Sarkar, N. (2015b). Can robotic interaction improve joint attention skills? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(11), 3726–3734.
*Wood, L., Dautenhahn, K., Robins, B., & Zaraki, A. (2017). Developing child-robot interaction scenarios with a humanoid robot to assist children with autism in developing visual perspective taking skills. In 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1055–1060). IEEE.
*Wood, L. J., Robins, B., Lakatos, G., Syrdal, D. S., Zaraki, A., & Dautenhahn, K. (2018). Piloting scenarios for children with autism to learn about visual perspective taking. In Annual Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems (pp. 260–270). Springer.
*Wood, L. J., Robins, B., Lakatos, G., Syrdal, D. S., Zaraki, A., & Dautenhahn, K. (2019). Developing a protocol and experimental setup for using a humanoid robot to assist children with autism to develop visual perspective taking skills. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 10(1), 167-179.
*Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Kumazaki, H., Wakita, Y., Nemoto, S., Ishiguro, H., Mimura, M., & Miyao, M. (2017). Positive bias of gaze-following to android robot in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 447–453). Springer International Publishing.
*Yoshikawa, Y., Kumazaki, H., Matsumoto, Y., Miyao, M., Kikuchi, M., & Ishiguro, H. (2019). Relaxing gaze aversion of adolescents with autism spectrum disorder in consecutive conversations with human and android robot—A preliminary study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 370.
Yuan, S. N. V., & Ip, H. H. S. (2018). Using virtual reality to train emotional and social skills in children with autism spectrum disorder. London Journal of Primary Care, 10(4), 110–112.
*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.
*Zantinge, G., van Rijn, S., Stockmann, L., & Swaab, H. (2019). Concordance between physiological arousal and emotion expression during fear in young children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 23(3), 629-638.
*Zaraki, A., Wood, L., Robins, B., & Dautenhahn, K. (2018). Development of a semi-autonomous robotic system to assist children with autism in developing visual perspective taking skills. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 969–976). IEEE.
*Zehnder, E., Jouaiti, M., & Charpillet, F. (2022). Evaluating Robot Acceptance in Children with ASD and Their Parents. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 45–53). Springer Nature Switzerland.
*Zhang, Y., Song, W., Tan, Z., Wang, Y., Lam, C. M., Hoi, S. P., ... & Yi, L. (2019a). Theory of robot mind: false belief attribution to social robots in children with and without autism. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1732.
*Zhang, Y., Song, W., Tan, Z., Zhu, H., Wang, Y., Lam, C. M., ... & Yi, L. (2019b). Could social robots facilitate children with autism spectrum disorders in learning distrust and deception? Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 140–149.
*Zheng, Z., Zhao, H., Swanson, A. R., Weitlauf, A. S., Warren, Z. E., & Sarkar, N. (2018). Design, development, and evaluation of a noninvasive autonomous robot-mediated joint attention intervention system for young children with ASD. IEEE Transactions on Human-machine Systems, 48(2), 125-135.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ADN conceptualised this paper, supervised screening process, drafted the manuscript, and revised the work. RV conducted literature research, screened all articles, analysed data, and drafted the manuscript. MM and MV critically revised the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Vagnetti, R., Di Nuovo, A., Mazza, M. et al. Social Robots: A Promising Tool to Support People with Autism. A Systematic Review of Recent Research and Critical Analysis from the Clinical Perspective. Rev J Autism Dev Disord (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-024-00434-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-024-00434-5