- Email: [email protected]
HRI Assessment of ASKNAO Intervention Framework via Typically Developed Child
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
2016 IEEE International Symposium ium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors, IIRIS 2016, 17-20 December 2016, Tokyo, Japan
HRI Assessment of ASKNAO Intervention Framework Frame via Typically Developed Child M. Haziq Khairul Salleh, Mohd Azfar Miskam, Hanafiah Yusso Yussof, Abdul Rahman Omar Center of Excellence for Humanoid Robots and Bio-sensing Univesiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, MALAYSIA
Abstract This paper discuss about mock experiment on a typically developed child. The mock experiment is based on the previous work of the experimental framework on ASKNAO intervention. This is conducted as a preparation for the main experiment and to fine-tune the framework so that undesirable elements from the framework can be avoided. A typically developed child is used rather than an autism child because the typically developed child is able to handle the stress that occurs and capable of expressing his emotions freely. The findings of the experiment shows that the several adjustment need to be made on the previous framework in order to achieve a better result for the main experiment on an autism child.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review Peer-review under under responsibility responsibility of of organizing organizing committee committeeof ofthe the2016 2016IEEE IEEEInternational InternationalSymposium Symposiumon onRobotics Roboticsand andIntelligent IntelligentSensors (IRIS 2016). 2016). Sensors(IRIS Keywords: Humanoid Robot Nao; Autism; Social Interaction; ASKNAO; Rehabilitation Robotics
1. Introduction The disorder known as autism has long been in the history of medical research as the behavior exhibits by the patients are unique and would differ from one person to another. The treatment developed to combat autism varied from using medications, specialized diets, chelation, to educational therapy [1][2][3]. Nowadays, researchers from the engineering sides are also taking part in autism research as the current technology developed [4] and pilot studies done [5] shows that even a simple daily gadgets are effective in gaining the autistic’s attention. Thus, a specialized technology can be developed to help them learn to cope with their own disorder.
1.1. Autism Autism is a life-long disorder that has been researched over many years. Though upon its first discovery it was considered to be a type of schizophrenia [6], it is now defined as a neurodevelopmental disorder which causes a person to have an abnormal social behavior. The patient would usually exhibits a combination of these behaviors: (a) limited interest in activity, (b) having trouble to express and communicate to others his/her own desire and (c) having difficulties and unable to understand other people’s intentions. This is because an autism patients are impaired in social interaction, communication be it verbal or non-verbal, and having repetitive behavior; the three characteristics that is more known as the ‘triads of impairments’. Even though autism has been researched for
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors(IRIS 2016). doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.01.230
334
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
some time, the treatment for autism is still continued being developed and improved upon as the disorder is unique from one patient to another. Currently, the best method to treat an autism patient is with therapy, especially during childhood [7]. An early autism intervention is actually an autism therapy where the patients are at a very young age, usually during childhood. Since autism can be detected at an early age of 3 years old [8], an early intervention is suggested because a child has a better capabilities of learning compared to an older age due to the brain plasticity [9]. By undergoing therapy at an early age, the patients are anticipated to be able to live normally at the later stage of life as they have already learn on how to cope with their disabilities. This have been proven as research done had shown that an autistic person with an early intervention had a better quality of life, though occasionally dependent on their families, compared to patients whom had no treatment at all where they are totally dependent on their families. Although early intervention helped with combating autism, the system itself isn’t without flaw. Conventional therapy would require therapist or an autism specialist to help with the intervention. As autism prevalence are on the rise [10][11][12], there might be a shorthanded of staff and/or governing officials in helping to treat the patients. This is especially true in Malaysia where the National Autism Society of Malaysia (NASOM), an NGO dedicated to help children with autism, is having difficulties to accommodate their patients and require more volunteers to help in their cause. With these current problem at hand, there is a need to develop a better system in treating autism. Whether it is creating a new type of far better and more efficient therapy or to create a system that doesn’t depend entirely on a specialized therapist, the treatment of autism needs to evolve to adapt with the current rising of children with autism. 1.2. Technological Intervention Nowadays, with technologies integrated in our daily life, researchers are tempted to see whether these technology that have helped us can be used in therapy. Surely enough, a lot of research have been done whereby gadgets are included in a therapy session to help patients rehabilitate their disorders [13][14]. The same is also true for autism intervention as experiments done had shown children with autism does give positive results when exposed with technologies in their intervention, whether the technology is in the form of video games[15], iPad[16] or video tutorial/instructions [17]. With the advancement of technology in the current era, robotics intervention have also been tested, whereby the technology used are in the form of robots such as Kaspar [18], Tito [19] and Robota [20]. These robots however have their own limitations as they are usually only contains single modules such as only to gain an autistic child’s response, and they are developed by a team of researchers, therefore are not for commercial use but only for research purpose. Humanoid robot NAO however, is a commercially available robot that can be bought for research purpose or for own entertainment. Developed by Aldebaran Robotics of France, the humanoid robot NAO has been used by researchers to understand a better walking gait [21], creating intercommunication between the robots to work together [22], and even chosen to be used for the RoboCup Standard Platform League (SPL) [23]. Developed with humanoid robot NAO is ASKNAO system, which is a special education apps aimed to help children with autism. Originally named as Autism Solution for Kids with NAO (ASKNAO), the program consist of several modules ranging from teaching the children basic school subject, making simple interaction such as getting to know the children, to entertaining programs such as dancing, singing and storytelling. Unlike the other robots and technology, both humanoid robot NAO and the ASKNAO system is available to the public usage. Therefore, it is an advantage to be taken of as research and medical facilities are able to purchase them for therapy session with the children with autism. There is however a limitation of the ASKNAO system as it can only be used in conjunction with the humanoid robot NAO and the apps created doesn’t have a usage guidelines. The work that is to be done is to classify the apps in accordance to the three earlier mention subscales of autism and to create a guidelines for everyday users. By categorizing these apps into the autism subscales, parents, teachers, and therapist can use the ASKNAO apps to target the necessary skills that the child lacks in. 2. Methodology The experiment presented in this paper is based on the previous work of experimental framework of ASKNAO [24]. The main experiment is targeted to be conducted on an autism child. However, prior to the conduct of the main experiment, a mock experiment is carried out. This mock experiment is carried out to gauge the suitability of the suggested experimental framework. In other words, the experimental framework is actually a guidelines for conducting the experiment. Nevertheless, the framework itself has not been tested and validated. Thus by conducting the experiment on a typically developing child, the experimental framework itself can be tested. Not only the mock experiment will test the framework, but the results obtained can be used to fine tune the proposed framework.
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
335
Fig. 1. Process of fine-tuning the experimental framework
In the mock experiment, a typically developing child was used to test the reaction on the ASKNAO intervention. The assumption is that whatever reactions of discomfort shown by the typically developing child related to the framework, it is expected that similar behavior might be reflected in the autism child. By identifying the discomfort elements shown by the typically developing child, these elements can be removed out or adjusted from the setting prior to the actual test given to the autism child. The features to be observed during the experiment is the setup itself; i.e. the child’s reaction; the interaction between the teacher, the child, the researcher and the robot itself; and, the error and flaws that might occurs during the intervention. With these observations as the results, future experiments can be adjusted accordingly so that it will proceed smoothly. The setup for the experiment is based on the setups of the previous paper. The basic setup is shown in the Figure 2 below. However, since this experiment is done with a typically developed child, the setup is slightly modified. The modifications from the original framework is shown in the Table 1.
Fig. 2. (a) Experimental setup for an ASKNAO intervention. (b) The typically developed child interacting with NAO robot, Table 1. Modification of the framework from previous work. Elements
Original Setup
Modified Setup
Child
Autism Child
Typically Developed Child
Experimental Conductor
Therapist
Caretaker
Environment
Isolated Room
Open Space
Researchers
Hidden
Plain View
The changed elements are with reasons. First, the typically developing child is able to test proof of the concept. From the responds of a typically developing child, researchers can differentiate between the pleasant elements and discomfort elements on the child. A typically developing child is able to communicate his thoughts and feelings as opposed to an autism child. Having the capabilities of expressing emotions freely, the child’s thought and reactions during the intervention are sincere. These emotions shown by the child will then become the results of the experiment in which the researcher can find out which part of the intervention is vexing or boring. These are the feedbacks that will help the researcher to fine tune the experimental framework. Second modified element is the teacher in the room. In the original framework, the therapist is the teacher while in this setup, the child’s caretaker will act as the teacher. These modifications does not affect much on the original framework since the conductor of the experiment can either be the child’s teacher, therapist or even parents. The rationale for this is that ASKNAO program is supposed to be used by a teacher to teach a student. The broad term for teacher in this context is actually someone who is close to the child and able to interact with him. For an autism child, it is recommended that the therapist play the role of a teacher as they have the medical knowledge to help the child to learn efficiently. As for the typically developed child, any caretaker is sufficient to play the role of experiment’s conductor, as long as the child is comfortable with his caretaker. This is because the typically
336
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
developed child is able to express his emotions freely without hesitation towards his caretaker. The caretaker can also act as the child’s comfort zone because of the intimacy shared by them. Third, the mock experiment is conducted in an open space rather than in an isolated room. In the original framework, the experiment is to be conducted in an isolated room for an autism child. This is because an autism child is easily distracted, frightened or feel discomfort by random loud noise. By having an isolated room, the random loud noise can be controlled and the autism child’s chances of feeling uncomfortable can be restricted. Since the experiment is done with a typically developed child, a random loud noise wouldn’t bother the child as much as it would bother an autism child. A typically developed child will be able to handle the stress of random noises in the background and still maintain the focus with ASKNAO intervention. This assumptions is drawn due to the typical classroom learning environment, in which children would learn in an open space with a lot of background noises. Fourth, the original setup would have the researchers hidden from plain sight. Having a stranger in the same room with an autism child could make the child uncomfortable. A new unidentified person in the same room would cause discomfort because an autism child is unable to quickly adapt with new situations. With a typically developed child however, having the researchers hidden from plain sight is unnecessary. This is because a typically developed child is able to ignore strangers as long as they are with someone that they are familiar with. In this case, the caretaker acts as the typically developed child’s comfort zone, an adult that the child can trust and someone who can give protections to the child. This assumption is drawn from basic interactions with typically developing children. A child in an environment with a large crowds of adults might be incapable of speaking up to other adults, but even the shyest child is able to speak up his intentions to his parents in this situations. Thus, having researchers in plain view during this experiment is assumed to have little to no impact on the child’s stress level. In summary, the changes shouldn’t cause significant effect regarding testing out the experimental framework. Again, such guidelines should be followed closely when undergoing an intervention with an autism child due to their finicky nature of easily startled and feeling discomfort. A typically developed child usually shows no problem in a broad environment as they are able to focus on the robotic intervention without any outside effort. The main concern in this experiment is to see the reaction of the child during the intervention, whether he finds the intervention fun or boring, whether he is engaged with the lesson and the robot NAO during the intervention and to expect the reaction that might be produced by an autistic child when undergoing the same intervention.
Fig. 3. The flow of the experiment.
The flow of the experiment are as Figure 3 above: the caretaker will conduct the intervention at will, and the child will engage with the humanoid robot NAO, interacting with the uploaded module of ASKNAO. The caretaker is taught briefly on how to operate the humanoid robot NAO and the ASKNAO program itself. Although the setup is done by the researcher, the intervention will be carried out by the caretaker himself. He will create his own ASKNAO playlist, consist of ASKNAO module that is suitable for the child, as the caretaker knows the child intimately. This will ensure that the child is able to properly react with the question given by the robot and reinforce the knowledge that the child had already learn in school. Once the playlist have been created, and the child is ready to engage, the caretaker will give a cue and start the intervention. As proposed in the previous framework whereby the therapist have the full control over the intervention, the caretaker is also given full control whereby he can start or stop the intervention at will, skipping the current playing modules or repeating it depending on the child’s mood. This full authority is given to the caretaker as he knew the child, therefore is able to predict whether the child is feeling restless or comfortable enough to continue the undergoing intervention. The authority given to the caretaker also shows the basic principle of a teacher-student relationship when learning in a typical classroom. The interaction between the child and the caretaker is expected, as he is the one conducting the lesson, helping the child to learn, whereby the robot and the ASKNAO modules used merely act as a teaching tool. The researcher will monitor the intervention, only to interrupt whenever the caretaker requires help or if the intervention is going awry in terms of technical problems. The child’s reaction towards the moving robot, the caretaker’s action in teaching the child, the whole aspect of intervention is recorded as a data. The data obtained can help researcher to understand which part of the intervention might cause discomfort to the child thus adjusting the current framework so that it will run smoothly during the real intervention. The interaction between the child and the caretaker is also noted as this interaction is hopefully be replicated in the
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
real intervention with the autism children and his/her caretaker, thus providing context that the intervention does help bridge the communication between the two. 3. Results and Discussions The experiment has been carried out and the whole intervention were recorded via a camcorder. The results are the reactions of the child during the whole experiment, the interactions between the child and the caretaker, and the whole process of the experiments. The observable data are listed below. A. Observed Data: Child’s Reaction x The child’s face shows excitement when meeting the robot for the first time. x The child immediately wants to skip the instructions from the robot. x The child is a little annoyed having to repeat the same module. x The child is also annoyed having to answer the question repetitively. x The child shows impatience during the next module loading. x In the Guess Sports app, the child only answers 1 questions and wanted to skip the play. x The Reward module of Happy Birthday Song was played and the child was mildly entertained. x Towards the end, the child seemed disinterested, but kept on paying attention to the robot. x The child commented that the whole intervention was ‘fine’. B. Observed Data: Child-Caretaker Interaction x The caretaker shows the child where to press when he wanted to skip instructions. x The caretaker gave hints to the child, guiding him to the correct answer. x At times, the caretaker would talk to the child. Usually during the loading of next module. x Although the child is supposed to interact with the robot, the caretaker would also sometimes gave the answer to the robot. x The caretaker and the child would exchange glances frequently. C. Observed Data: The Running Session x The robot’s module froze during the intervention and have to be restarted for the session. x The internet connection was somewhat slow, thus taking a long time to load a module. x The NAO robot couldn’t hear the answer from the child clearly, and sometimes would often mistake the child’s answer even though the child answered correctly. x One of the module (Guess Emotion) had skipped by itself during the intervention. x The NAO robot would make beeping noises from time to time. The results obtained had shown that the child is excited to play with the robot. This is to be expected as the same reactions is also achieved with an autism child where the NAO robot is presented without any module, yet the child initiate the interaction with the robot [5]. As the session goes on however, with the technical error which caused the robot to be restarted, the child shows mild annoyance towards the robot’s program as he needs to repeat the same module with the start of a new session. The reason for such error is yet to be investigated as it happens quite randomly from time to time, however, it is attributed that the error would occur during slow internet connection. The slow internet connection also gave impact on the loading of the next module, as the ASKNAO intervention is an internet based program. This needs to be noted for the real sessions as to acquire good and stable internet connection so that the future intervention isn’t interrupted. During the first module of ‘Good Morning Class’, the child immediately wanted to skip the instructions given from the robot and plays with the module. This reaction from the child is actually desirable because by having the robot doing the explanation, the chance to have an interaction between the therapist and the child is missed. Rather than having the robot giving the instructions to the child on how to interact during the module, perhaps it is better that the therapist or caretaker were to give the instructions to the child himself. The interactions between the teacher and the child is important in the real sessions because an autism child would have a hard time to interact with his teacher. By having the teacher to explain the instructions to the child himself, the interactions between them is established and it is hoped that the autism child is able to learn interacting with other people. Towards the end of the sessions, the child annoyance with the intervention is noticed considerably, but is still able to maintain the interaction with the robot. This annoyance shown is perhaps due to the nature of the child himself because the caretaker did mention that the child is a little impatient at times. However, the behaviour can also be contributed to the robots constants error in listening. The robot kept on saying that the child had given the wrong answer even though the given answer is correct. The robot’s error is perhaps due to the open environment itself whereby the background noises might have interfered with the NAO robot’s listening feedback. The environment can also be attributed to the child feeling impatient as the room only have one fan source and the experiment is done during the hot afternoon weather. As the intervention was still in sessions, one of the module from the playlist was skipped by the robot intentionally. This is due to the module was yet to be installed into the robot, and with the slow internet connection, the choice done to skip the module was a good move. The robot had also make random beeping noises during the interventions. This is because the robot requires stable
337
338
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
internet connection to constantly check its basic information such as the correct date, latest firmware and etc. As the robot couldn’t establish a stable connection, it emits a beeping noise as a reminder for the user. It should be noted that during the whole intervention, the interactions between the child and the caretaker would occur frequently. In the first module as the child wanted to skip instructions, the caretaker had reminded the child if he were to skip the instructions, he might fail to understand on how to interact with the module. The caretaker also had shown the place for the child to press if the child insisted on skipping the instructions. As the sessions went on, some questions prove to be quite puzzling for the child to answer by himself. The caretaker then would provide hints for the child to be able to give out the correct answer. The caretaker would also help with the child in answering the questions directly to the robot whenever the robot couldn’t hear the answer from the child properly. Although the child did exhibits minor annoyance towards sessions due to the error that surfaced during the intervention, the caretaker had helped the child to calm down and able to proceed with the session. The interactions between the child and the caretaker is hopefully to be replicated with the autism child, where the therapist is able to calm down the autism child whenever he feels uncomfortable, and that the autism child is able to turn to the therapist for comfort should the child felt disturbed. As mentioned earlier, the interactions between the child and the teacher is a desirable outcome as it would enforce the child to communicate with another person. At the end of the session, the caretaker whom conducting the experiment mentions that although the ASKNAO program is easy to use, it requires internet connection which could be problematic. He also noted that the module ‘Good Morning Class’ isn’t require for every session, only to be used for the first time interaction. 4. Conclusion The experiment is done, the results are obtained as mentioned above. It seems that the experimental framework is indeed useable but require slight adjustment. Some adjustment that is needed is of course the environment settings where: (1) the internet is stable and with strong connections, (2) the place is well ventilated, and (3) the background noise level is very low that it wouldn’t disturbed the NAO robot’s hearing. At most, the typically developed child showed some annoyance during the intervention is due to the robot’s performance. Having a strong and stable internet connection would ensure that the NAO robot won’t lag in loading the module, froze while playing the module, and able to eliminate the random beeping noise. A well-ventilated place can help with everyone’s comfort even the NAO robot itself. As the robot has both mechanical and electrical parts, it will build up heat after a while. Therefore, a well-ventilated area can also help with the robot’s performance. A better option is a room with air conditioner. A low background noise is also required for the robot to hear the child’s speech clearly without interruption. Not only that, an autism child is also easily startled with random loud noises that could contribute to his discomfort. Thus, the experiment needs to be carried out in an isolated room for better results. The interactions shown in the experiment is hopefully to be replicated with the real experiments using autism child. This is because an autism child need to be exposed to more social interactions, so that the child can learn to communicate and express his intention to another person. Although the ASKNAO intervention is used to teach the children with autism and encourage them to speak up or interact, it is merely a tool for the teacher to help them learn. Moreover, the interactions between the child and the robot is just a step for the child to learn to express themselves, and hopefully later on will be able to use the skills they learn with an actual human. In conclusion, the mock experiments on the typically developed child has successfully validate the elements to be adjusted in the original framework and thus is considered necessary prior to the conduct of the actual experiments on the autism child.
Acknowledgements For this project, our gratitude goes to the Ministry of Education (MOE), Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) for funding the research through the Niche research Grant Scheme (NRGS) [600-RMI/NRGS 5/3 (1/2013)], [600-RMI/NRGS 5/3 (2/2013)] and wishes to thank the Research Management Institute (RMI), Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) for the administrative support. References 1. Mental Health, N. (2010). Medications for Autism. Psych Central. Mar. 15, 2015. [Internet]. Available from: http://psychcentral.com/lib/medications-forautism/0005716 [Accessed: Mar. 15, 2015].. 2. Davis TN, O’Reilly M, Kang S, Lang R, Rispoli M, Sigafoos J, Lancioni G, Copeland D, Attai S, Mulloy A. Chelation treatment for autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2013 Jan 31;7(1):49-55. 3. Matson JL, Turygin NC, Beighley J, Rieske R, Tureck K, Matson ML. Applied behavior analysis in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Recent developments, strengths, and pitfalls. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012 Mar 31;6(1):144-50. 4. Dautenhahn K. Socially intelligent agents: Creating relationships with computers and robots. Springer Science & Business Media; 2002 May 31. 5. Shamsuddin S, Yussof H, Ismail L, Hanapiah FA, Mohamed S, Piah HA, Zahari NI. Initial response of autistic children in human-robot interaction therapy with humanoid robot NAO. InSignal Processing and its Applications (CSPA), 2012 IEEE 8th International Colloquium on 2012 Mar 23 (pp. 188-193). IEEE.
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339 6. Wing L. The History of Ideas on Autism Legends, Myths and Reality. Autism. 1997 Jul 1;1(1):13-23. 7. Rivard M, Terroux A, Mercier C. Effectiveness of early behavioral intervention in public and mainstream settings: The case of preschool-age children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014 Sep 30;8(9):1031-43. 8. Rogers SJ. What are infant siblings teaching us about autism in infancy?. Autism Research. 2009 Jun 1;2(3):125-37. 9. Johnston MV. Plasticity in the developing brain: implications for rehabilitation. Developmental disabilities research reviews. 2009 Jan 1;15(2):94-101. 10. Waterhouse L. Autism overflows: increasing prevalence and proliferating theories. Neuropsychology Review. 2008 Dec 1;18(4):273-86. 11. Matson JL, Kozlowski AM. The increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2011 Mar 31;5(1):418-25. 12. Developmental DM, 2010 Principal Investigators. Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years-autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, DC: 2002). 2014 Mar 28;63(2):1. 13. Picelli A, Melotti C, Origano F, Waldner A, Fiaschi A, Santilli V, Smania N. Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Patients With Parkinson Disease A Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair. 2012 May 1;26(4):353-61. 14. Maeshima S, Osawa A, Nishio D, Hirano Y, Takeda K, Kigawa H, Sankai Y. Efficacy of a hybrid assistive limb in post-stroke hemiplegic patients: a preliminary report. BMC neurology. 2011 Sep 27;11(1):1. 15. Tetteroo D, Shirzad A, Pereira MS, Zwinderman M, Le D, Barakova E. Mimicking Expressiveness Of Movements By Autistic Children In Game Play. InPrivacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2012 International Conference on and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing (SocialCom) 2012 Sep 3 (pp. 944-949). IEEE. 16. Doenyas C, Şimdi E, Özcan EÇ, Çataltepe Z, Birkan B. Autism and tablet computers in Turkey: Teaching picture sequencing skills via a web-based iPad application. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2014 Jan 31;2(1):60-71. 17. Better WI. Enhancing conversation skills in children with autism via video technology. Behavior Modification. 2001 Jan;25(1):140-58. 18. Wainer J, Dautenhahn K, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F. A pilot study with a novel setup for collaborative play of the humanoid robot KASPAR with children with autism. International journal of social robotics. 2014 Jan 1;6(1):45-65. 19. Duquette A, Michaud F, Mercier H. Exploring the use of a mobile robot as an imitation agent with children with low-functioning autism. Autonomous Robots. 2008 Feb 1;24(2):147-57. 20. Dautenhahn K, Billard A. Games children with autism can play with Robota, a humanoid robotic doll. InUniversal access and assistive technology 2002 (pp. 179-190). Springer London. 21. Ames AD, Cousineau EA, Powell MJ. Dynamically stable bipedal robotic walking with NAO via human-inspired hybrid zero dynamics. InProceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control 2012 Apr 17 (pp. 135-144). ACM. 22. Liu T, Meng MQ. Study on cooperation between humanoid robot Nao and Barrett WAM. InRobotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2012 IEEE International Conference on 2012 Dec 11 (pp. 980-983). IEEE. 23. Coltin B, Liemhetcharat S, Meriçli C, Tay J, Veloso M. Multi-humanoid world modeling in standard platform robot soccer. InHumanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on 2010 Dec 6 (pp. 424-429). IEEE. 24. Salleh, M. Haziq Khairul, et al. "Experimental Framework for the Categorization of Special Education Programs of ASKNAO." Procedia Computer Science 76 (2015): 480-487.
339
ScienceDirect Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
2016 IEEE International Symposium ium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors, IIRIS 2016, 17-20 December 2016, Tokyo, Japan
HRI Assessment of ASKNAO Intervention Framework Frame via Typically Developed Child M. Haziq Khairul Salleh, Mohd Azfar Miskam, Hanafiah Yusso Yussof, Abdul Rahman Omar Center of Excellence for Humanoid Robots and Bio-sensing Univesiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, MALAYSIA
Abstract This paper discuss about mock experiment on a typically developed child. The mock experiment is based on the previous work of the experimental framework on ASKNAO intervention. This is conducted as a preparation for the main experiment and to fine-tune the framework so that undesirable elements from the framework can be avoided. A typically developed child is used rather than an autism child because the typically developed child is able to handle the stress that occurs and capable of expressing his emotions freely. The findings of the experiment shows that the several adjustment need to be made on the previous framework in order to achieve a better result for the main experiment on an autism child.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review Peer-review under under responsibility responsibility of of organizing organizing committee committeeof ofthe the2016 2016IEEE IEEEInternational InternationalSymposium Symposiumon onRobotics Roboticsand andIntelligent IntelligentSensors (IRIS 2016). 2016). Sensors(IRIS Keywords: Humanoid Robot Nao; Autism; Social Interaction; ASKNAO; Rehabilitation Robotics
1. Introduction The disorder known as autism has long been in the history of medical research as the behavior exhibits by the patients are unique and would differ from one person to another. The treatment developed to combat autism varied from using medications, specialized diets, chelation, to educational therapy [1][2][3]. Nowadays, researchers from the engineering sides are also taking part in autism research as the current technology developed [4] and pilot studies done [5] shows that even a simple daily gadgets are effective in gaining the autistic’s attention. Thus, a specialized technology can be developed to help them learn to cope with their own disorder.
1.1. Autism Autism is a life-long disorder that has been researched over many years. Though upon its first discovery it was considered to be a type of schizophrenia [6], it is now defined as a neurodevelopmental disorder which causes a person to have an abnormal social behavior. The patient would usually exhibits a combination of these behaviors: (a) limited interest in activity, (b) having trouble to express and communicate to others his/her own desire and (c) having difficulties and unable to understand other people’s intentions. This is because an autism patients are impaired in social interaction, communication be it verbal or non-verbal, and having repetitive behavior; the three characteristics that is more known as the ‘triads of impairments’. Even though autism has been researched for
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors(IRIS 2016). doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.01.230
334
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
some time, the treatment for autism is still continued being developed and improved upon as the disorder is unique from one patient to another. Currently, the best method to treat an autism patient is with therapy, especially during childhood [7]. An early autism intervention is actually an autism therapy where the patients are at a very young age, usually during childhood. Since autism can be detected at an early age of 3 years old [8], an early intervention is suggested because a child has a better capabilities of learning compared to an older age due to the brain plasticity [9]. By undergoing therapy at an early age, the patients are anticipated to be able to live normally at the later stage of life as they have already learn on how to cope with their disabilities. This have been proven as research done had shown that an autistic person with an early intervention had a better quality of life, though occasionally dependent on their families, compared to patients whom had no treatment at all where they are totally dependent on their families. Although early intervention helped with combating autism, the system itself isn’t without flaw. Conventional therapy would require therapist or an autism specialist to help with the intervention. As autism prevalence are on the rise [10][11][12], there might be a shorthanded of staff and/or governing officials in helping to treat the patients. This is especially true in Malaysia where the National Autism Society of Malaysia (NASOM), an NGO dedicated to help children with autism, is having difficulties to accommodate their patients and require more volunteers to help in their cause. With these current problem at hand, there is a need to develop a better system in treating autism. Whether it is creating a new type of far better and more efficient therapy or to create a system that doesn’t depend entirely on a specialized therapist, the treatment of autism needs to evolve to adapt with the current rising of children with autism. 1.2. Technological Intervention Nowadays, with technologies integrated in our daily life, researchers are tempted to see whether these technology that have helped us can be used in therapy. Surely enough, a lot of research have been done whereby gadgets are included in a therapy session to help patients rehabilitate their disorders [13][14]. The same is also true for autism intervention as experiments done had shown children with autism does give positive results when exposed with technologies in their intervention, whether the technology is in the form of video games[15], iPad[16] or video tutorial/instructions [17]. With the advancement of technology in the current era, robotics intervention have also been tested, whereby the technology used are in the form of robots such as Kaspar [18], Tito [19] and Robota [20]. These robots however have their own limitations as they are usually only contains single modules such as only to gain an autistic child’s response, and they are developed by a team of researchers, therefore are not for commercial use but only for research purpose. Humanoid robot NAO however, is a commercially available robot that can be bought for research purpose or for own entertainment. Developed by Aldebaran Robotics of France, the humanoid robot NAO has been used by researchers to understand a better walking gait [21], creating intercommunication between the robots to work together [22], and even chosen to be used for the RoboCup Standard Platform League (SPL) [23]. Developed with humanoid robot NAO is ASKNAO system, which is a special education apps aimed to help children with autism. Originally named as Autism Solution for Kids with NAO (ASKNAO), the program consist of several modules ranging from teaching the children basic school subject, making simple interaction such as getting to know the children, to entertaining programs such as dancing, singing and storytelling. Unlike the other robots and technology, both humanoid robot NAO and the ASKNAO system is available to the public usage. Therefore, it is an advantage to be taken of as research and medical facilities are able to purchase them for therapy session with the children with autism. There is however a limitation of the ASKNAO system as it can only be used in conjunction with the humanoid robot NAO and the apps created doesn’t have a usage guidelines. The work that is to be done is to classify the apps in accordance to the three earlier mention subscales of autism and to create a guidelines for everyday users. By categorizing these apps into the autism subscales, parents, teachers, and therapist can use the ASKNAO apps to target the necessary skills that the child lacks in. 2. Methodology The experiment presented in this paper is based on the previous work of experimental framework of ASKNAO [24]. The main experiment is targeted to be conducted on an autism child. However, prior to the conduct of the main experiment, a mock experiment is carried out. This mock experiment is carried out to gauge the suitability of the suggested experimental framework. In other words, the experimental framework is actually a guidelines for conducting the experiment. Nevertheless, the framework itself has not been tested and validated. Thus by conducting the experiment on a typically developing child, the experimental framework itself can be tested. Not only the mock experiment will test the framework, but the results obtained can be used to fine tune the proposed framework.
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
335
Fig. 1. Process of fine-tuning the experimental framework
In the mock experiment, a typically developing child was used to test the reaction on the ASKNAO intervention. The assumption is that whatever reactions of discomfort shown by the typically developing child related to the framework, it is expected that similar behavior might be reflected in the autism child. By identifying the discomfort elements shown by the typically developing child, these elements can be removed out or adjusted from the setting prior to the actual test given to the autism child. The features to be observed during the experiment is the setup itself; i.e. the child’s reaction; the interaction between the teacher, the child, the researcher and the robot itself; and, the error and flaws that might occurs during the intervention. With these observations as the results, future experiments can be adjusted accordingly so that it will proceed smoothly. The setup for the experiment is based on the setups of the previous paper. The basic setup is shown in the Figure 2 below. However, since this experiment is done with a typically developed child, the setup is slightly modified. The modifications from the original framework is shown in the Table 1.
Fig. 2. (a) Experimental setup for an ASKNAO intervention. (b) The typically developed child interacting with NAO robot, Table 1. Modification of the framework from previous work. Elements
Original Setup
Modified Setup
Child
Autism Child
Typically Developed Child
Experimental Conductor
Therapist
Caretaker
Environment
Isolated Room
Open Space
Researchers
Hidden
Plain View
The changed elements are with reasons. First, the typically developing child is able to test proof of the concept. From the responds of a typically developing child, researchers can differentiate between the pleasant elements and discomfort elements on the child. A typically developing child is able to communicate his thoughts and feelings as opposed to an autism child. Having the capabilities of expressing emotions freely, the child’s thought and reactions during the intervention are sincere. These emotions shown by the child will then become the results of the experiment in which the researcher can find out which part of the intervention is vexing or boring. These are the feedbacks that will help the researcher to fine tune the experimental framework. Second modified element is the teacher in the room. In the original framework, the therapist is the teacher while in this setup, the child’s caretaker will act as the teacher. These modifications does not affect much on the original framework since the conductor of the experiment can either be the child’s teacher, therapist or even parents. The rationale for this is that ASKNAO program is supposed to be used by a teacher to teach a student. The broad term for teacher in this context is actually someone who is close to the child and able to interact with him. For an autism child, it is recommended that the therapist play the role of a teacher as they have the medical knowledge to help the child to learn efficiently. As for the typically developed child, any caretaker is sufficient to play the role of experiment’s conductor, as long as the child is comfortable with his caretaker. This is because the typically
336
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
developed child is able to express his emotions freely without hesitation towards his caretaker. The caretaker can also act as the child’s comfort zone because of the intimacy shared by them. Third, the mock experiment is conducted in an open space rather than in an isolated room. In the original framework, the experiment is to be conducted in an isolated room for an autism child. This is because an autism child is easily distracted, frightened or feel discomfort by random loud noise. By having an isolated room, the random loud noise can be controlled and the autism child’s chances of feeling uncomfortable can be restricted. Since the experiment is done with a typically developed child, a random loud noise wouldn’t bother the child as much as it would bother an autism child. A typically developed child will be able to handle the stress of random noises in the background and still maintain the focus with ASKNAO intervention. This assumptions is drawn due to the typical classroom learning environment, in which children would learn in an open space with a lot of background noises. Fourth, the original setup would have the researchers hidden from plain sight. Having a stranger in the same room with an autism child could make the child uncomfortable. A new unidentified person in the same room would cause discomfort because an autism child is unable to quickly adapt with new situations. With a typically developed child however, having the researchers hidden from plain sight is unnecessary. This is because a typically developed child is able to ignore strangers as long as they are with someone that they are familiar with. In this case, the caretaker acts as the typically developed child’s comfort zone, an adult that the child can trust and someone who can give protections to the child. This assumption is drawn from basic interactions with typically developing children. A child in an environment with a large crowds of adults might be incapable of speaking up to other adults, but even the shyest child is able to speak up his intentions to his parents in this situations. Thus, having researchers in plain view during this experiment is assumed to have little to no impact on the child’s stress level. In summary, the changes shouldn’t cause significant effect regarding testing out the experimental framework. Again, such guidelines should be followed closely when undergoing an intervention with an autism child due to their finicky nature of easily startled and feeling discomfort. A typically developed child usually shows no problem in a broad environment as they are able to focus on the robotic intervention without any outside effort. The main concern in this experiment is to see the reaction of the child during the intervention, whether he finds the intervention fun or boring, whether he is engaged with the lesson and the robot NAO during the intervention and to expect the reaction that might be produced by an autistic child when undergoing the same intervention.
Fig. 3. The flow of the experiment.
The flow of the experiment are as Figure 3 above: the caretaker will conduct the intervention at will, and the child will engage with the humanoid robot NAO, interacting with the uploaded module of ASKNAO. The caretaker is taught briefly on how to operate the humanoid robot NAO and the ASKNAO program itself. Although the setup is done by the researcher, the intervention will be carried out by the caretaker himself. He will create his own ASKNAO playlist, consist of ASKNAO module that is suitable for the child, as the caretaker knows the child intimately. This will ensure that the child is able to properly react with the question given by the robot and reinforce the knowledge that the child had already learn in school. Once the playlist have been created, and the child is ready to engage, the caretaker will give a cue and start the intervention. As proposed in the previous framework whereby the therapist have the full control over the intervention, the caretaker is also given full control whereby he can start or stop the intervention at will, skipping the current playing modules or repeating it depending on the child’s mood. This full authority is given to the caretaker as he knew the child, therefore is able to predict whether the child is feeling restless or comfortable enough to continue the undergoing intervention. The authority given to the caretaker also shows the basic principle of a teacher-student relationship when learning in a typical classroom. The interaction between the child and the caretaker is expected, as he is the one conducting the lesson, helping the child to learn, whereby the robot and the ASKNAO modules used merely act as a teaching tool. The researcher will monitor the intervention, only to interrupt whenever the caretaker requires help or if the intervention is going awry in terms of technical problems. The child’s reaction towards the moving robot, the caretaker’s action in teaching the child, the whole aspect of intervention is recorded as a data. The data obtained can help researcher to understand which part of the intervention might cause discomfort to the child thus adjusting the current framework so that it will run smoothly during the real intervention. The interaction between the child and the caretaker is also noted as this interaction is hopefully be replicated in the
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
real intervention with the autism children and his/her caretaker, thus providing context that the intervention does help bridge the communication between the two. 3. Results and Discussions The experiment has been carried out and the whole intervention were recorded via a camcorder. The results are the reactions of the child during the whole experiment, the interactions between the child and the caretaker, and the whole process of the experiments. The observable data are listed below. A. Observed Data: Child’s Reaction x The child’s face shows excitement when meeting the robot for the first time. x The child immediately wants to skip the instructions from the robot. x The child is a little annoyed having to repeat the same module. x The child is also annoyed having to answer the question repetitively. x The child shows impatience during the next module loading. x In the Guess Sports app, the child only answers 1 questions and wanted to skip the play. x The Reward module of Happy Birthday Song was played and the child was mildly entertained. x Towards the end, the child seemed disinterested, but kept on paying attention to the robot. x The child commented that the whole intervention was ‘fine’. B. Observed Data: Child-Caretaker Interaction x The caretaker shows the child where to press when he wanted to skip instructions. x The caretaker gave hints to the child, guiding him to the correct answer. x At times, the caretaker would talk to the child. Usually during the loading of next module. x Although the child is supposed to interact with the robot, the caretaker would also sometimes gave the answer to the robot. x The caretaker and the child would exchange glances frequently. C. Observed Data: The Running Session x The robot’s module froze during the intervention and have to be restarted for the session. x The internet connection was somewhat slow, thus taking a long time to load a module. x The NAO robot couldn’t hear the answer from the child clearly, and sometimes would often mistake the child’s answer even though the child answered correctly. x One of the module (Guess Emotion) had skipped by itself during the intervention. x The NAO robot would make beeping noises from time to time. The results obtained had shown that the child is excited to play with the robot. This is to be expected as the same reactions is also achieved with an autism child where the NAO robot is presented without any module, yet the child initiate the interaction with the robot [5]. As the session goes on however, with the technical error which caused the robot to be restarted, the child shows mild annoyance towards the robot’s program as he needs to repeat the same module with the start of a new session. The reason for such error is yet to be investigated as it happens quite randomly from time to time, however, it is attributed that the error would occur during slow internet connection. The slow internet connection also gave impact on the loading of the next module, as the ASKNAO intervention is an internet based program. This needs to be noted for the real sessions as to acquire good and stable internet connection so that the future intervention isn’t interrupted. During the first module of ‘Good Morning Class’, the child immediately wanted to skip the instructions given from the robot and plays with the module. This reaction from the child is actually desirable because by having the robot doing the explanation, the chance to have an interaction between the therapist and the child is missed. Rather than having the robot giving the instructions to the child on how to interact during the module, perhaps it is better that the therapist or caretaker were to give the instructions to the child himself. The interactions between the teacher and the child is important in the real sessions because an autism child would have a hard time to interact with his teacher. By having the teacher to explain the instructions to the child himself, the interactions between them is established and it is hoped that the autism child is able to learn interacting with other people. Towards the end of the sessions, the child annoyance with the intervention is noticed considerably, but is still able to maintain the interaction with the robot. This annoyance shown is perhaps due to the nature of the child himself because the caretaker did mention that the child is a little impatient at times. However, the behaviour can also be contributed to the robots constants error in listening. The robot kept on saying that the child had given the wrong answer even though the given answer is correct. The robot’s error is perhaps due to the open environment itself whereby the background noises might have interfered with the NAO robot’s listening feedback. The environment can also be attributed to the child feeling impatient as the room only have one fan source and the experiment is done during the hot afternoon weather. As the intervention was still in sessions, one of the module from the playlist was skipped by the robot intentionally. This is due to the module was yet to be installed into the robot, and with the slow internet connection, the choice done to skip the module was a good move. The robot had also make random beeping noises during the interventions. This is because the robot requires stable
337
338
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339
internet connection to constantly check its basic information such as the correct date, latest firmware and etc. As the robot couldn’t establish a stable connection, it emits a beeping noise as a reminder for the user. It should be noted that during the whole intervention, the interactions between the child and the caretaker would occur frequently. In the first module as the child wanted to skip instructions, the caretaker had reminded the child if he were to skip the instructions, he might fail to understand on how to interact with the module. The caretaker also had shown the place for the child to press if the child insisted on skipping the instructions. As the sessions went on, some questions prove to be quite puzzling for the child to answer by himself. The caretaker then would provide hints for the child to be able to give out the correct answer. The caretaker would also help with the child in answering the questions directly to the robot whenever the robot couldn’t hear the answer from the child properly. Although the child did exhibits minor annoyance towards sessions due to the error that surfaced during the intervention, the caretaker had helped the child to calm down and able to proceed with the session. The interactions between the child and the caretaker is hopefully to be replicated with the autism child, where the therapist is able to calm down the autism child whenever he feels uncomfortable, and that the autism child is able to turn to the therapist for comfort should the child felt disturbed. As mentioned earlier, the interactions between the child and the teacher is a desirable outcome as it would enforce the child to communicate with another person. At the end of the session, the caretaker whom conducting the experiment mentions that although the ASKNAO program is easy to use, it requires internet connection which could be problematic. He also noted that the module ‘Good Morning Class’ isn’t require for every session, only to be used for the first time interaction. 4. Conclusion The experiment is done, the results are obtained as mentioned above. It seems that the experimental framework is indeed useable but require slight adjustment. Some adjustment that is needed is of course the environment settings where: (1) the internet is stable and with strong connections, (2) the place is well ventilated, and (3) the background noise level is very low that it wouldn’t disturbed the NAO robot’s hearing. At most, the typically developed child showed some annoyance during the intervention is due to the robot’s performance. Having a strong and stable internet connection would ensure that the NAO robot won’t lag in loading the module, froze while playing the module, and able to eliminate the random beeping noise. A well-ventilated place can help with everyone’s comfort even the NAO robot itself. As the robot has both mechanical and electrical parts, it will build up heat after a while. Therefore, a well-ventilated area can also help with the robot’s performance. A better option is a room with air conditioner. A low background noise is also required for the robot to hear the child’s speech clearly without interruption. Not only that, an autism child is also easily startled with random loud noises that could contribute to his discomfort. Thus, the experiment needs to be carried out in an isolated room for better results. The interactions shown in the experiment is hopefully to be replicated with the real experiments using autism child. This is because an autism child need to be exposed to more social interactions, so that the child can learn to communicate and express his intention to another person. Although the ASKNAO intervention is used to teach the children with autism and encourage them to speak up or interact, it is merely a tool for the teacher to help them learn. Moreover, the interactions between the child and the robot is just a step for the child to learn to express themselves, and hopefully later on will be able to use the skills they learn with an actual human. In conclusion, the mock experiments on the typically developed child has successfully validate the elements to be adjusted in the original framework and thus is considered necessary prior to the conduct of the actual experiments on the autism child.
Acknowledgements For this project, our gratitude goes to the Ministry of Education (MOE), Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) for funding the research through the Niche research Grant Scheme (NRGS) [600-RMI/NRGS 5/3 (1/2013)], [600-RMI/NRGS 5/3 (2/2013)] and wishes to thank the Research Management Institute (RMI), Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) for the administrative support. References 1. Mental Health, N. (2010). Medications for Autism. Psych Central. Mar. 15, 2015. [Internet]. Available from: http://psychcentral.com/lib/medications-forautism/0005716 [Accessed: Mar. 15, 2015].. 2. Davis TN, O’Reilly M, Kang S, Lang R, Rispoli M, Sigafoos J, Lancioni G, Copeland D, Attai S, Mulloy A. Chelation treatment for autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2013 Jan 31;7(1):49-55. 3. Matson JL, Turygin NC, Beighley J, Rieske R, Tureck K, Matson ML. Applied behavior analysis in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Recent developments, strengths, and pitfalls. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012 Mar 31;6(1):144-50. 4. Dautenhahn K. Socially intelligent agents: Creating relationships with computers and robots. Springer Science & Business Media; 2002 May 31. 5. Shamsuddin S, Yussof H, Ismail L, Hanapiah FA, Mohamed S, Piah HA, Zahari NI. Initial response of autistic children in human-robot interaction therapy with humanoid robot NAO. InSignal Processing and its Applications (CSPA), 2012 IEEE 8th International Colloquium on 2012 Mar 23 (pp. 188-193). IEEE.
M. Haziq Khairul Salleh et al. / Procedia Computer Science 105 (2017) 333 – 339 6. Wing L. The History of Ideas on Autism Legends, Myths and Reality. Autism. 1997 Jul 1;1(1):13-23. 7. Rivard M, Terroux A, Mercier C. Effectiveness of early behavioral intervention in public and mainstream settings: The case of preschool-age children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014 Sep 30;8(9):1031-43. 8. Rogers SJ. What are infant siblings teaching us about autism in infancy?. Autism Research. 2009 Jun 1;2(3):125-37. 9. Johnston MV. Plasticity in the developing brain: implications for rehabilitation. Developmental disabilities research reviews. 2009 Jan 1;15(2):94-101. 10. Waterhouse L. Autism overflows: increasing prevalence and proliferating theories. Neuropsychology Review. 2008 Dec 1;18(4):273-86. 11. Matson JL, Kozlowski AM. The increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2011 Mar 31;5(1):418-25. 12. Developmental DM, 2010 Principal Investigators. Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years-autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, DC: 2002). 2014 Mar 28;63(2):1. 13. Picelli A, Melotti C, Origano F, Waldner A, Fiaschi A, Santilli V, Smania N. Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Patients With Parkinson Disease A Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair. 2012 May 1;26(4):353-61. 14. Maeshima S, Osawa A, Nishio D, Hirano Y, Takeda K, Kigawa H, Sankai Y. Efficacy of a hybrid assistive limb in post-stroke hemiplegic patients: a preliminary report. BMC neurology. 2011 Sep 27;11(1):1. 15. Tetteroo D, Shirzad A, Pereira MS, Zwinderman M, Le D, Barakova E. Mimicking Expressiveness Of Movements By Autistic Children In Game Play. InPrivacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2012 International Conference on and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing (SocialCom) 2012 Sep 3 (pp. 944-949). IEEE. 16. Doenyas C, Şimdi E, Özcan EÇ, Çataltepe Z, Birkan B. Autism and tablet computers in Turkey: Teaching picture sequencing skills via a web-based iPad application. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2014 Jan 31;2(1):60-71. 17. Better WI. Enhancing conversation skills in children with autism via video technology. Behavior Modification. 2001 Jan;25(1):140-58. 18. Wainer J, Dautenhahn K, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F. A pilot study with a novel setup for collaborative play of the humanoid robot KASPAR with children with autism. International journal of social robotics. 2014 Jan 1;6(1):45-65. 19. Duquette A, Michaud F, Mercier H. Exploring the use of a mobile robot as an imitation agent with children with low-functioning autism. Autonomous Robots. 2008 Feb 1;24(2):147-57. 20. Dautenhahn K, Billard A. Games children with autism can play with Robota, a humanoid robotic doll. InUniversal access and assistive technology 2002 (pp. 179-190). Springer London. 21. Ames AD, Cousineau EA, Powell MJ. Dynamically stable bipedal robotic walking with NAO via human-inspired hybrid zero dynamics. InProceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control 2012 Apr 17 (pp. 135-144). ACM. 22. Liu T, Meng MQ. Study on cooperation between humanoid robot Nao and Barrett WAM. InRobotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2012 IEEE International Conference on 2012 Dec 11 (pp. 980-983). IEEE. 23. Coltin B, Liemhetcharat S, Meriçli C, Tay J, Veloso M. Multi-humanoid world modeling in standard platform robot soccer. InHumanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on 2010 Dec 6 (pp. 424-429). IEEE. 24. Salleh, M. Haziq Khairul, et al. "Experimental Framework for the Categorization of Special Education Programs of ASKNAO." Procedia Computer Science 76 (2015): 480-487.
339