Individuals with Autism: Analysis of the First Interaction with Nao Robot Based on Their Proprioceptive and Kinematic Profiles

  • Pauline Chevalier
  • Brice Isableu
  • Jean-Claude Martin
  • Adriana TapusEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 371)


Our research aims to develop a new personalized social interaction model between a humanoid robot and an individual suffering of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), so as to enhance his/her social and communication skills. In order to define individual’s profile, we posit that the individual’s reliance to proprioceptive and kinematic visual cues will affect the way an individual suffering of ASD interacts with a social agent. We describe a first experiment that defines each participant’s perceptivocognitive and sensorimotor profile with respect to the integration of visual inputs, thanks to the Sensory Profile questionnaire and an experimental set-up. We succeeded to form 3 groups with significant different behavioural responses inside our subject pool formed by 7 adults and 6 children with ASD. In a second experiment, we presented the Nao robot to all of our participants. We video-analysed their behaviours and compared them to the profiles we defined. In view of our results, this first interaction confirmed our hypothesis: participants with a weak proprioceptive integration and strong visual dependency had more successful interaction than participants with an overreliance on proprioceptive input and hyporeactivity to visual cues.


Autism Personalized interaction Socially assistive robotics Proprioception Kinematics 



This work is supported by IdF Doctoral Fellowship France 2013, HANDICAP theme. Many thanks to G. Lerigoleur and C. Bazile. We also thank the participants, their families and the caretakers for their participation and support.


  1. 1.
    Feil-Seifer, D., Mataric, M.J.: Defining socially assistive robotics. In: 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 465–468. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tapus, A., Mataric, M.J., Scassellati, B.: The grand challenges in socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. (RAM) 14(1) (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charman, T., Swettenham, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Cox, A., Baird, G., Drew, A.: Infants with autism: an investigation of empathy, pretend play, joint attention, and imitation. Dev. Psychol. 33(5), 781 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hart, M.: Autism/excel study. In: Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 136–141. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tapus, A., Peca, A., Aly, A., Pop, C., Jisa, L., Pintea, S., Rusu, A.S., David, D.O.: Children with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot—a series of single case experiments. Interact. Stud. 13(3), 315–347 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, E.S., Berkovits, L.D., Bernier, E.P., Leyzberg, D., Shic, F., Paul, R., Scassellati, B.: Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 43(5), 1038–1049 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simmons, D.R., Robertson, A.E., McKay, L.S., Toal, E., McAleer, P., Pollick, F.E.: Vision in autism spectrum disorders. Vis. Res. 49(22), 2705–2739 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gowen, E., Hamilton, A.: Motor abilities in autism: a review using a computational context. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 43(2), 323–344 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greffou, S., Bertone, A., Hahler, E.M., Hanssens, J.M., Mottron, L., Faubert, J.: Postural hypo-reactivity in autism is contingent on development and visual environment: a fully immersive virtual reality study. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 42(6), 961–970 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haswell, C.C., Izawa, J., Dowell, L.R., Mostofsky, S.H., Shadmehr, R.: Representation of internal models of action in the autistic brain. Nat. Neurosci. 12(8), 970–972 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scassellati, B., Admoni, H., Mataric, M.: Robots for use in autism research. Ann. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 14, 275–294 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salter, T., Michaud, F., Larouche, H.: How wild is wild? A taxonomy to characterize the ‘wildness’ of child-robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2(4), 405–415 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunn, W.: Sensory Profile: User’s Manual. The Psychological Corporation, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown, C., Dunn, W.: Adolescent-Adult Sensory Profile: User’s Manual. Therapy Skill Builders, Tucson (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Isableu, B., Fourre, B., Vuillerme, N., Giraudet, G., Amorim, M.A.: Differential integration of visual and kinaesthetic signals to upright stance. Exp. Brain Res. 212(1), 33–46 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baumberger, B., Isableu, B., Flückiger, M.: The visual control of stability in children and adults: postural readjustments in a ground optical flow. Exp. Brain Res. 159(1), 33–46 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Molloy, C.A., Dietrich, K.N., Bhattacharya, A.: Postural stability in children with autism spectrum disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 33(6), 643–652 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Torres, E.B., Brincker, M., Isenhower, R.W., Yanovich, P., Stigler, K.A., Nurnberger, J.I., Metaxas, D.N., José, J.V.: Autism: the micro-movement perspective. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 7 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pauline Chevalier
    • 1
  • Brice Isableu
    • 2
  • Jean-Claude Martin
    • 3
  • Adriana Tapus
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Robotics and Computer Vision LabENSTA-ParisTechPalaiseauFrance
  2. 2.CIAMS-Motor Control and PerceptionUniversité Paris-SudOrsayFrance
  3. 3.Cognition, Perception, UseLIMSI-CNRSOrsayFrance

Personalised recommendations