Therapeutic engagement in robot‐assisted psychological interventions: A systematic review

Riches, Simon; Azevedo, Lisa; Vora, Alkesh; Kaleva, Ina; Taylor, Lawson; Guan, Peipei; Jeyarajaguru, Priyanga; McIntosh, Harley; Petrou, Constantina; Pisani, Sara; Hammond, Neil

doi:10.1002/cpp.2696

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) often achieve a higher degree of task engagement through interactions with humanoid robots than through interactions with humans (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8). This tendency is also true in their interactions with android robots.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in the Optimal Motion of Android Robots for the Ease of Communications Among Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorders

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Android robots are employed in various fields. Many individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have the motivation and aptitude for using such robots. Interactions with these robots are structured to resemble social situations in which certain social behaviors can occur and to simulate daily life. Considering that individuals with ASD have strong likes and dislikes, ensuring not only the optimal appearance but also the optimal motion of robots is important to achieve smooth interaction and to draw out the potential of robotic interventions. We investigated whether individuals with ASD found it easier to talk to an android robot with little motion (i.e., only opening and closing its mouth during speech) or an android robot with much motion (i.e., in addition to opening and closing its mouth during speech, moving its eyes from side to side and up and down, blinking, deeply breathing, and turning or moving its head or body at random). This was a crossover study in which a total of 25 participants with ASD experienced mock interviews conducted by an android robot with much spontaneous facial and bodily motion and an android robot with little motion. We compared demographic data between participants who answered that the android robot with much motion was easier to talk to than android robot with little motion and those who answered the opposite. In addition, we investigated how each type of demographic data was related to participants' feeling of comfort in an interview setting with an android robot. Fourteen participants indicated that the android robot with little motion was easier to talk to than the robot with much motion, whereas 11 participants answered the opposite. There were significant differences between these two groups in the sensory sensitivity score, which reflects the tendency to show a low neurological threshold. In addition, we found correlations between the sensation seeking score, which reflects the tendency to show a high neurological threshold, and self-report ratings of comfort in each condition. These results provide preliminary support for the importance of setting the motion of an android robot considering the sensory traits of ASD.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in the Optimal Motion of Android Robots for the Ease of Communications Among Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorders

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the previous review, the format, dose, frequency, and duration varied greatly [23,24]. In our review, the vast majority of SARs are low dose (15 min with dementia [23], although one study on pet robots for people with dementia showed that both individual and group-format SAR significantly ameliorated BPSD [25].…”

Section: Summary Of Significant Findingsmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…In the previous review, the format, dose, frequency, and duration varied greatly [23, 24]. In our review, the vast majority of SARs are low dose (15 min at a time), high frequency (3 times per week), and long-lasting (12 weeks).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Thus, SARs intervention has been previously used for therapy [22, 23]. There have been systematic reviews of SAR interventions in older adults living with dementia, but there has been no analysis of their effects [7, 24]. In addition, two meta-analyses of SARs intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently been published, but the results are inconsistent [23, 25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Socially Assistive Robots for People Living with Dementia in Long-Term Facilities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Hsieh

Wang

et al. 2023

Gerontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective: The purpose of our study was to explore the immediate and long-term effects of socially assistive robots (SARs) on neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), positive emotional experiences, and social interaction in older people living with dementia. Methods: We set keywords and used Boolean operators to search the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, IEEE Digital Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Chinese Electronic Periodical Service from inception to February 2022 for randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Collaboration bias assessment tool was used to assess article quality, and RevMan 5.4.1 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Results: A total of 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. SARs can help people living with dementia reduce their NPS of depression and anxiety, provide happiness from positive emotional experiences, and improve their social interaction through conversation. However, there was no significant improvement in agitation behavior, overall BPSD, or quality of life in people living with dementia. In follow-up, it was found that the effect of SRT was limited. Conclusion: Socially assistive robots can reduce depression and increase positive emotions in people living with dementia. They may also reduce the burden on healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42020169340.

show abstract

“…These robots are used in more than 130 countries around the world, and have been shown to be effective through psychological evaluations [67,68]. Nonetheless, this research direction is still in its early stages.…”

Section: Research Hotspots Of Sridmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Hotspots and Trends of Social Robot Interaction Design: A Bibliometric Analysis

Wang,

Chen,

Huo

et al. 2023

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Social robot interaction design is crucial for determining user acceptance and experience. However, few studies have systematically discussed the current focus and future research directions of social robot interaction design from a bibliometric perspective. Therefore, we conducted this study in order to identify the latest research progress and evolution trajectory of research hotspots in social robot interaction design over the last decade. (2) Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review based on 2416 papers related to social robot interaction design obtained from the Web of Science (WOS) database. Our review utilized bibliometric techniques and integrated VOSviewer and CiteSpace to construct a knowledge map. (3) Conclusions: The current research hotspots of social robot interaction design mainly focus on #1 the study of human–robot relationships in social robots, #2 research on the emotional design of social robots, #3 research on social robots for children’s psychotherapy, #4 research on companion robots for elderly rehabilitation, and #5 research on educational social robots. The reference co-citation analysis identifies the classic literature that forms the basis of the current research, which provides theoretical guidance and methods for the current research. Finally, we discuss several future research directions and challenges in this field.

show abstract

Therapeutic engagement in robot‐assisted psychological interventions: A systematic review

Cited by 16 publications

References 70 publications

Differences in the Optimal Motion of Android Robots for the Ease of Communications Among Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorders

Differences in the Optimal Motion of Android Robots for the Ease of Communications Among Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorders

Socially Assistive Robots for People Living with Dementia in Long-Term Facilities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Research Hotspots and Trends of Social Robot Interaction Design: A Bibliometric Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About