Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Are Robots Ready to Deliver Autism Interventions? A Comprehensive Review

  • Survey
  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents a review of the contemporary robotics research with respect to making robots and human–robot interaction (HRI) useful for autism intervention in clinical settings. Robotics research over the past decade has demonstrated that many children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) have a strong interest in robots and robot toys and can connect with a robot significantly better than with a human. Despite showing great promise, research in this direction has made minimal progress in advancing robots as clinically useful for ASD intervention. Moreover, the clinicians are generally not convinced about the potential of robots. A major reason behind this is that a vast majority of HRI studies on robot-mediated intervention (RMI) do not follow any standard research design and, consequently, the data produced by these studies is minimally appealing to the clinical community. In clinical research on ASD intervention, a systematic evaluation of the evidence found from a study is performed to determine the effectiveness of an experimental intervention (e.g., a RMI). An intervention that produces a stable positive effect is considered as an evidence-based practice (EBP) in autism. EBPs enable clinicians to choose the best available treatments for an individual with ASD. The ultimate goal of RMI, therefore, is to be considered as an EBP so that they can actually be used for treating autism. There are several criteria to measure the strength of evidence, and they are mostly geared toward rigorous research design. The research on RMI, therefore, needs to follow standard research design to be acceptable by the clinical community. This paper reviews the contemporary literature on robotics and autism to understand the status of RMI with respect to being an EBP in autism treatment. First, a set of guidelines is reported which is considered as a benchmark for research design in clinical research on ASD intervention and can easily be adopted in HRI studies on RMI. The existing literature on RMI is then reviewed with respect to these guidelines. We hope that the guidelines reported in this paper will help the robotics community to design user studies on RMI that meet clinical standards and thereby produce results that can lead RMI toward being considered as an EBP in autism. Note that the paper is exclusively focused on the role of robots in ASD intervention/therapy. Reviews on the use of robots in ASD diagnosis are beyond the scope of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. American Psychological Association (2001) Policy statement on evidence-based practice in psychology. http://www.apa.org/practice/ebpstatement.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  2. Andreae H, Andreae P, Low J, Brown D (2014) A study of auti: a socially assistive robotic toy. In: Proceedings of the conference on interaction design and children. ACM, New York, p 245–248

  3. Begum M, Serna R, Kontak D, Allspaw J, Kuczynski J, Suarez J, Yanco H (2015) Measuring the efficacy of robots in autism therapy: How informative are standard HRI metrics? In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction

  4. Bekele ET, Lahiri U, Swanson AR, Crittendon JA, Warren ZE, Sarkar N (2013) A step towards developing adaptive robot-mediated intervention architecture (ARIA) for children with autism. Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 21:289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bekele E, Crittendon JA, Swanson A, Sarkar N, Warren ZE (2014) Pilot clinical application of an adaptive robotic system for young children with autism. Autism 18:598–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bird G, Leighton J, Press C, Heyes C (2007) Intact automatic imitation of human and robot actions in autism spectrum disorders. Proc Biol Sci 274(1628):3027–3031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boccanfuso L, O’Kane JM (2010) Adaptive robot design with hand and face tracking for use in autism therapy. In: International conference on social robotics, p 265–274

  8. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cabibihan JJ, Javed H, Ang M Jr, Aljunied SM (2013) Why robots? A survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. Int J Soc Robot 5(4):593–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaminade T, Fonseca DD, Rosset D, Lutscher E, Cheng G, Deruelle C (2012) fMRI study of young adults with autism interacting with a humanoid robot. In: International symposium on robot and human interactive communications, p 380–385

  11. Constantino JN, Gruber CP (2005) Social responsiveness scale manual. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles. http://www.wpspublish.com/app/. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  12. Constantino JN, Davis SA, Todd RD, Schindler MK, Gross MM (2003) Validation of a brief quantitative measure of autistic traits: comparison of the social responsiveness scale with the autism diagnostic interview-revised. J Autism Dev Disord 33(4):427–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Costa S, Soares F, Santos C, Ferreira MJ, Moreira F, Pereira AP, Cunha F (2011) An approach to promote social and communication behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorders: robot based intervention. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Atlanta, p 101–106

  14. Costescu CA, Vanderborght B, David DO (2015) Reversal learning task in children with autism spectrum disorder: a robot-based approach. J Autism Dev Disord 45(11):3715–3725

  15. Dautehhahn K, Werry I (2007) Towards interactive robotics in autism therapy. Pragmat Cogn 12:1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. David D, Matu S, David OA (2014) Robot-based psychotherapy: concepts development, state of the art, and new directions. Int J Cogn Ther 7(2):192–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Diehl J, Schmitt L, Crowell CR, Villano M (2012) The clinical use of robots for children with autism spectrum disorders: a critical review. Res Autism Spectr Disord 6(1):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Diehl J, Crowell CR, Villano M, Wier K, Tang K, Riek L (2014) Clinical applications of robots in autism spectrum disorder diagnosis and treatment. In: A comprehensive guide to autism. Springer, New York

  19. Duquette A, Michaud F, Mercier H (2008) Exploring the use of a mobile robot as an imitation agent with children with low-functioning autism. Auton Robots 24(1):147–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Feil-Seifer J, Mataric MJ (2008) B3IA: a control architecture for autonomous robot-assisted behavior intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. In: International conference on human–robot interaction, p 328–333

  21. Feil-Seifer J, Mataric MJ (2010) Using proxemics to evaluate human–robot interaction. In: International conference on human–robot interaction, p 143–144

  22. Fujimoto I, Matsumoto T, Silva PRSD, Kobayashi M, Higashi M (2011) Mimicking and evaluating human motion to improve the imitation skill of children with autism through a robot. Int J Soc Robot 3:349–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Giannopulu I (2013) Multimodal cognitive nonverbal and verbal interactions: the neurorehabilitation of autistic children via mobile toy robots. Int J Adv Life Sci 5(3, 4):214–222

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goodrich MA, Colton M, Brinton B, Fujiki M, Atherton JA, Ricks D, Maxfield MH, Acerson A (2012) Incorporating a robot into an autism therapy team. IEEE Intell Syst Mag 27(2):52–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Greczek J, Kaszubski E, Atrash A, Matari M (2014) Graded cueing feedback in robot-mediated imitation practice for children with autism spectrum disorders. In: Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, p 561–566

  26. Grynszpan O, Weiss PL, Perez-Diaz F, Gal E (2014) Innovative technology-based interventions for autism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis. Autism 18:346–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Harris SL, Delmolino L (2002) Applied behavior analysis: its application in the treatment of autism and related disorders in young children. Infants Young Child 14:11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Horner RH, Carr EG, Halle J, McGee G, Odom S, Wolery M (2005) The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Except Child 71:165–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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. Dev Neurorehabil 16:345–356

  30. Jordan K, King M, Hellersteth S, Wiren A, Mulligan H (2012) Robotic technology for teaching adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a feasibility study. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on rehabilitation engineering and assistive technology. ACM, Singapore, p 24:1–24:4

  31. Kazdin AE (2008) Evidence-based treatment and practice: new opportunities to bridge clinical research and practice, enhance the knowledge base, and improve patient care. Am Psychol 63:146–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kelley JF (1984) An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Trans Inf Syst 2(1):26–41

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Kim ES, Scassellati B (2012) Bridging the research gap: making HRI useful to individuals with autism. Hum Robot Interact 1(1):26–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim ES, Berkovits LD, Bernier EP, Leyzberg D, Shic F, Paul R, Scassellati B (2013) Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. Autism Dev Disord 43:1038–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yasuda Y (2007) Children–robot interaction: a pilot study in autism therapy. Prog Brain Res 164:385–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lee J, Takehashi H, Nagai C, Obinata G, Stefanov D (2012) Which robot features can stimulate better responses from children with autism in robot-assisted therapy? Adv Robot Syst 9:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lord C, Rutter M, Goode S, Heemsbergen J, Jordan H, Mawhood L, Schopler E (1989) Autism diagnostic observation schedule: a standardized observation of communicative and social behavior. J Autism Dev Disord 19:185–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lord C, Rutter M, DiLavore P, Risi S (2001) Autism diagnostic observation schedule (ADOS) manual. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles. http://www.wpspublish.com/app/. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  39. MAG Initiative (2012) Autism spectrum disorders: guide to evidence based interventions. http://autismguidelines.dmh.mo.gov/documents/Interventions.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  40. Mesibov G, Shea V (2011) Evidence-based practices and autism. Autism 15:114–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mesibov G, Shea V, Schopler E (2005) The TEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nathan PE, Gorman JM (2007) A guide to treatments that work, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Odom SL (2013) Technology-aided instruction and intervention (TAII) fact sheet. The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group, Chapel Hill. http://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/sites/autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/files/2014-EBP-Report.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  44. Odom SL, Brantlinger E, Gersten R, Horner RD, Thompson B, Harris K (2004) Quality indicators for research in special education and guidelines for evidence-based practices: executive summary. Council for Exceptional Children Division for Research, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  45. Odom S, Collet-Klingenberg L, Rogers S, Hatton D (2010) Evidence-based practices in interventions for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Prev School Fail 54:275–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pennington R, Saadatzi MN, Welch KC, Scott R (2014) Using robot-assisted instruction to teach students with intellectual disabilities to use personal narrative in text messages. J Spec Educ Technol 29(4):4958

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pierno A, Mari M, Lusher D, Castiello U (2008) Robotic movement elicits visuomotor priming in children with autism. Neuropsychologia 31:448–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pioggia G, Sica ML, Ferro M, Igliozzi R, Muratori F, Ahluwalia A, Rossi DD (2007) Human–robot interaction in autism: face, an android-based social therapy. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Jeju, p 605–612

  49. Pop CA, Petrule A, Pintea S, Peca A, Simut R, Vanderborght B, David DO (2013a) Imitation and social behaviors of children with ASD in interaction with robonova. A series of single case experiments. Transylv J Psychol 14(1):71–93

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pop CA, Simut RE, Pintea S, Saldien J, Rusu AS, Vanderfaeillie J, David DO, Lefeber D, Vanderborght B (2013b) Social robots vs. computer display: Does the way social stories are delivered make a difference for their effectiveness on ASD children? Educ Comput Res 49(3):381–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Reed FD, Hyman SR, Hirst JM (2011) Applications of technology to teach social skills to children with autism. Dev Neurorehabil 5:1003–1010

    Google Scholar 

  52. Reichow B, Volkmar FR, Cicchetti DV (2008) Method for evaluating and determining evidence-based practices in autism. Autism Dev Disord 38:1311–1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Riek LD (2012) Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Int J Hum Robot Interact 1(1):119–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Robins B, Dautenhahn K (2014) Tactile interactions with a humanoid robot: novel play scenario implementations with children with autism. Int J Soc Robot 6:397–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2005) Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills. Univers Access Inf Soc 4:105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Dubowski J (2006) Does appearance matter in the interaction of children with autism with a humanoid robot? Interact Stud 7:479–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rogers SJ, Dawson G (2012) Play and engagement in early autism: the early start Denver model. www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/edsl/esdm/training.html. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  58. Rogers SJ, Vismara LA (2008) Evidence-based comprehensive treatments for early autism. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 37:8–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rutter M, Bailey A, Lord C, Berument SK (2003) Social communication questionnaire. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles. http://www.wpspublish.com/app/. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  60. Scassellati B (2005) Quantitative metrics of social response for autism diagnosis. In: International workshop on robots and human interactive communication, p 585–590

  61. Scassellati B, Admoni H, Mataric M (2012) Robots for use in autism research. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:275–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Schopler E, Reichler RJ, Renner BR (1988) The childhood autism rating scale (CARS) manual. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles. http://www.wpspublish.com/app/. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  63. Shamsuddin S, Yussof H, Ismail L, Hanapiah FA, Mohamed S, Piah HA, Zahair N (2012) Initial response in HRI—a case study on evaluation of child with autism spectrum disorders interacting with a humanoid robot NAO. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on robotics and intelligent sensors. Elsevier, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, p 1448–1455

  64. Srinivasan S, Lynch KA, Bubela DJ (2013) Effect of interactions between a child and a robot on the imitation and praxis performance of typically developing children and a child with autism: a preliminary study. Percept Motor Skills Phys Dev Meas 116(3):885–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Tapus A, Peca A, Aly A, Pop C, Jisa L, Pintea S, Rusu AS, David DO (2012) Children with autism social engagement in interaction with NAO, an imitative robot. Interact Stud 13(3):315–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Vanderborght B, Simut R, Saldien J, Pop C, Rusu AS, Pintea S, Lefeber D, David DO (2012) Using the social robot probo as a social story telling agent for children with ASD. Interact Stud 13:348–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wainer J, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F, Dautenhahn K (2014) Using the humanoid robot KASPAR to autonomously play triadic games and facilitate collaborative play among children with autism. Auton Ment Dev 6(3):183–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wilczynski S, Green G, Ricciardi J, Boyd B, Hume A, Ladd M, Odom S, Rue H (2009) National standards report: The national standards project addressing the need for evidence-based practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorders. National Autism Center. http://www.nationalautismcenter.org/affiliates/reports.php. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

  69. Wong C, Odom S, Hume K, Cox AW, Fettig A, Kucharczyk S, Brock ME, Plavnick JB, Fleury VP, Schultz TR (2014) Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group, Chapel Hill. http://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/sites/autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/files/2014-EBP-Report.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (IIS-0905228 and IIS-1111125). Begum’s research has been funded by the National Science Foundation (CRII, EAGER) and IEEE-RAS SIGHT.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, USA

    Momotaz Begum & Holly A. Yanco

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, USA

    Richard W. Serna

Authors
  1. Momotaz Begum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard W. Serna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Holly A. Yanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Momotaz Begum.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Begum, M., Serna, R.W. & Yanco, H.A. Are Robots Ready to Deliver Autism Interventions? A Comprehensive Review. Int J of Soc Robotics 8, 157–181 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0346-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0346-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation