Pilot clinical application of an adaptive robotic system for young children with autism

Bekele, Esubalew; Crittendon, Julie A.; Swanson, Amy; Sarkar, Nilanjan; Warren, Zachary

doi:10.1177/1362361313479454

Cited by 110 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Automated eye gaze is possible even in this context. However, it would require the participant to wear a head tracker, which was proved to be too uncomfortable for many participants (40% of participants did not want to use it) [124,125].…”

Section: Eye Gaze Trackingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology-Facilitated Diagnosis and Treatment of Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Engineering Perspective

Liu

Zhao

et al. 2017

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The rapid development of computer and robotic technologies in the last decade is giving hope to perform earlier and more accurate diagnoses of the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and more effective, consistent, and cost-conscious treatment. Besides the reduced cost, the main benefit of using technology to facilitate treatment is that stimuli produced during each session of the treatment can be controlled, which not only guarantees consistency across different sessions, but also makes it possible to focus on a single phenomenon, which is difficult even for a trained professional to perform, and deliver the stimuli according to the treatment plan. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of research on recent technology-facilitated diagnosis and treat of children and adults with ASD. Different from existing reviews on this topic, which predominantly concern clinical issues, we focus on the engineering perspective of autism studies. All technology facilitated systems used for autism studies can be modeled as human machine interactive systems where one or more participants would constitute as the human component, and a computer-based or a robotic-based system would be the machine component. Based on this model, we organize our review with the following questions: (1) What are presented to the participants in the studies and how are the content and delivery methods enabled by technologies? (2) How are the reactions/inputs collected from the participants in response to the stimuli in the studies? (3) Are the experimental procedure and programs presented to participants dynamically adjustable based on the responses from the participants, and if so, how? and (4) How are the programs assessed?

show abstract

Section: Eye Gaze Trackingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology-Facilitated Diagnosis and Treatment of Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Engineering Perspective

Liu

Zhao

et al. 2017

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In previous studies using Flobi, which has clear eyes and can turn its eyes, the children with ASD paid attention to the robot’s eyes [46]. In contrast, in previous studies using Nao, whose eyes are relatively small, although the children with ASD appeared to be absorbed by the robot, they could not pay attention to its eyes [14, 27, 28]. Notably, Nao is a strong attractor for children with ASD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…compared to that in previous studies [14, 28, 48]. The participants had no previous experience interacting with an unfamiliar robot.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of robotic intervention on joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorders

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA growing body of anecdotal evidence indicates that the use of robots may provide unique opportunities for assisting children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). However, previous studies investigating the effects of interventions using robots on joint attention (JA) in children with ASD have shown insufficient results. The robots used in these studies could not turn their eyes, which was a limitation preventing the robot from resembling a human agent.MethodsWe compared the behavior of children with ASD with that of children with typical development (TD) during a JA elicitation task while the children interacted with either a human or a robotic agent. We used the robot “CommU,” which has clear eyes and can turn its eyes, for the robotic intervention. The age range of the participants was limited to 5–6 years.ResultsSixty-eight participants participated in this study, including 30 (10 females and 20 males) children with ASD and 38 (13 females and 25 males) children with TD. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the following two groups: the robotic intervention group or the control group. JA in the children with ASD was better during the robotic intervention than during the human agent intervention. These children exhibited improved performance in the JA task with human after interacting with the robot CommU. JA was differentially facilitated by the human and robotic agents between the ASD and TD children.ConclusionsThe findings of this study significantly contribute to the literature on the impact of robots on JA and provide information regarding the suitability of specific robot types for therapeutic use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13229-018-0230-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of robotics research in this domain shows the 'likability' of robots but fails to demonstrate a robot's efficacy in therapy and/or diagnosis of ASD [8,18]. Accordingly, we are observing a recent paradigm shift where more research is focusing on investigating the efficacy of robots in ASD therapy through improved research design [4,12,16,22,28], investigation of robots' features and abilities [25], and increasing robots' autonomy [5]. Defining appropriate efficacy metrics is one of the fundamental components in investigating the efficacy of robots in ASD therapy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Measuring the Efficacy of Robots in Autism Therapy

Begum

Serna

Kontak

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A significant amount of robotics research over the past decade has shown that many children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have a strong interest in robots and robot toys, concluding that robots are potential tools for the therapy of individuals with ASD. However, clinicians, who have the authority to approve robots in ASD therapy, are not convinced about the potential of robots. One major reason is that the research in this domain does not have a strong focus on the efficacy of robots. Robots in ASD therapy are end-user oriented technologies, the success of which depends on their demonstrated efficacy in real settings. This paper focuses on measuring the efficacy of robots in ASD therapy and, based on the data from a feasibility study, shows that the human-robot interaction (HRI) metrics commonly used in this research domain might not be sufficient.

show abstract

Pilot clinical application of an adaptive robotic system for young children with autism

Cited by 110 publications

References 34 publications

Technology-Facilitated Diagnosis and Treatment of Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Engineering Perspective

Technology-Facilitated Diagnosis and Treatment of Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Engineering Perspective

The impact of robotic intervention on joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorders

Measuring the Efficacy of Robots in Autism Therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About