The Importance of Play: AT for Children with Disabilities

Chapter

Abstract

The potential of robots as assistive tools for play activities has been demonstrated through a number of studies. Children with motor impairments can use robots to manipulate objects and engage in play in activities that parallel those of their typically developing peers. This participation creates opportunities to learn cognitive, social, motor, and linguistic skills. By comparing disabled children’s performance with that of typically developing children, robot use can also provide a proxy measure of cognitive abilities.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams K, Cook A (2009) Using an augmentative and alternative communication device to program and control Lego robots. In: RESNA Annual Conference, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams K, Yantha J, Cook A (2008a) Lego robot control via a speech generating communication device for operational and communicative goals. In: International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication – 13th Biennial ISAAC Conference, Montreal, QCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams K, Yantha J, Cook A (2008b) Lego robot control via a speech generating communication device for play and educational activities. In: RESNA Annual Conference, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson A (2002) Learning language using infrared toys. In: 23rd Annual Southeast Augmentative Communication, Birmingham, ALGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andreopoulos A, Tsotsos J (2007) A framework for door localization and door opening using a robotic wheelchair for people living with mobility impairments. In: Proceedings of the Robotics Science and Systems (RSS) Manipulation Workshop: Sensing and Adapting to the Real World, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook A, Hoseit P, Ka M, Lee R, Zenteno-Sanchez C (1998) Using a robotic arm system to facilitate learning in very young disabled children. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 32(2):132–137Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook A, Bentz B, Harbottle N, Lynch C, Miller B (2005) School-based use of a robotic arm system by children with disabilities. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 13(4):452–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook A, Adams K, Volden J, Harbottle N, Harbottle C (2010) Using Lego robots to estimate cognitive ability in children who have severe physical disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corrigan M, Adams K, Cook A (2007) Development of an interface for integration of communication and robotic play. In: RESNA Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eberhardt S, Osborne J, Rahman T (2000) Classroom evaluation of the arlyn arm robotic workstation. Assistive Technology 12(2):132–143Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howell R, Hay K (1989) Software-based access and control of robotic manipulators for severely physically disabled students. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 1(1):53–72Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karlan G, Nof S, Widmer N, McEwen I, Nail B (1988) Preliminary clinical evaluation of a prototype interactive robotic device (IRD-1). In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, QCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kronreif G, Kornfeld M, Prazak B, Mina S, Frst M (2007) Robot assistance in playful environment user trials and results. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kwee H, Quaedackers J, van de Bool E, Theeuwen L, Speth L (1999) POCUS project: Adapting the control of the Manus manipulator for persons with cerebral palsy. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwee H, Quaedackers J, van de Bool E, Theeuwen L, Speth L (2002) Adapting the control of the Manus manipulator for persons with cerebral palsy: An exploratory study. Technology and Disability 14(1):31–42Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Musselwhite C, Wagner D, Cervantes O (2008) AAC authors: Writing beginning books for young readers. In: 13th Biennial Conference of International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Montreal, QCGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nof S, Karlan G, Widmer N (1988) Development of a prototype interactive robotic device for use by multiply handicapped children. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, QCGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patrizia M, Claudio M, Leonardo G, Alessandro P (2009) A robotic toy for children with special needs: From requirement to design. In: Proceedings of the 11th International IEEE Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Kyoto, Japan, pp 918–923Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poletz L, Encarnao P, Adams K, Cook A (2009) Robot skills of preschool children. In: RESNA Annual Conference, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robins B, Ferrari E, Dautenhaun K (2008) Developing scenarios for robot assisted play. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp 180–186Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith J, Topping M (1996) The introduction of a robotic aid to drawing into a school for physically handicapped children: A case study. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 59(12):565–569Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Speech Pathology and Audiology, Faculty of Rehabilitation MedicineUniversity of AlbertaABCanada
  2. 2.Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, and Faculty of Rehabilitation MedicineUniversity of AlbertaABCanada

Personalised recommendations