2008 Bird, Leighton, Press, & Heyes. Compare speed of copied response to robotic and human hand movements. USA Group with ASD respond faster to robotic hands, comparison group showed opposite pattern.2008 Pierno, Mari, Lusher, & CastielloParticipants viewed either a human or a robot arm grab a ball, then heard an auditory cue for them to grab another ball.Canada ASD group faster reach for ball after robot model than human model, controls had opposite effect.2006 Robins, Dautenhahn, & Dubowski, Compare responses to man dressed as a robot vs. traditional human clothing, and prototypical robot with or without human dress.USA All participants directed a greater number of behaviors that indicated interest at the object that had more robot-like characteristics2010 Costa, Santos, Soares, Ferreira, & Moreira, The two participants engaged individually with robot in a simple ball passing game, with each other, and also together with the robot.
England. Data only on one participant, who showed increase in interaction with robot over time. Qualitative description of an increase in interaction between two participants when together.
2005 Robins, Dautenhahn, te Boekhorst, & Billard, Same methodology as Robins et al. (2004), except additional trials during which robot imitated behavior of participants.USA. No group analyses, but authors argue that each participant showed an individual pattern of increased interaction with the robot and a human.2009 De Silva, Tadano, Saito, Lambacher, & Higashi,Robot referenced object in the room, and attempted to detect participant’s gaze. Brazil.
Children spent majority of time interacting with robot, followed robot’s social referencing, robot correctly identified object of child’s gaze 75% of the time2010 Pioggia, Igliozzi, Ferro, Ahluwalia, Muratori, & Rossi,Participants view robotic facial display, attempt to identify an one expressed emotion, cardiac frequencies measured Italy Child with ASD did not initially acknowledge robot, but guessed emotion correctly, showed no elevation in cardiac response to robot2009 Matari? & Feil-Seifer Engaged with robot whose responses were either contingent on their behavior, or randomAustralia Robot with contingent responses elicited increased interactions with robot, and with others2010 Dautenhahn & WerryCompared participants’ responses to a purely reactive mobile and a non-robotic passive toySwitzerland Two of the four participants directed a greater number of behaviors that indicated interest at the robot2012 Kozima, Nakagawa, & Yasuda Free play daycare setting where robot could move gaze toward interlocutor, and made simple movements and sounds to express excitementJapan Observational data on three case studies suggest children with ASD showed interest in robot, and two of the three children engaged a third interlocutor in the interaction2008Stanton, Kahn Jr., Severson, Ruckert, & Gill,Measure participants responses to robotic dog versus mechanical toy dogUSA Children with ASD preferred robotic dog, spoke more with dog, and engaged more with a third (peer) interlocutor2012 Feil-Seifer & Matari?, Measured positive and negative responses to robot that reacted contingent upon behavior, or randomlySpain High level of individual differences in response to the robot, regardless of the condition2011 Wainer, Ferrari, Dautenhahn, & Robins, Participants engaged in a robotics class, programmed robots, worked with peers who also had an ASDUSA Children showed enjoyment in class, collaborations with peers in the class, and continued interactions after class ended2010 Stribling, Rae, & DickersonUsed conversational analysis to examine stereotyped/repetitive speech elicited by robotEngland Authors were able to use robot to elicit stereotyped/repetitive speech (not the primary goal of study)2008 Pioggia, Igliozzi, Sica, Ferro, Ahluwalia, Muratori, & Rossi,All participants were scored on Childhood Autism Rating Scale ( HYPERLINK “https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223958/” l “R37” h Schopler, Reichler, De Vellis, & Daly, 1980) while interacting with the robotic facial display, and when interacting with a humanUSA Individual differences in CARS scores in response to the robot when compared to human interactions2011 François, Powell, & DautenhahnEngaged in non- directive intervention with therapist, room included a robotic dog that responded to touchUSA Each case examined individually, authors argue that each child showed individual patterns of conceptual and play development, no statistics provided2013 Lund, Pederson, & BeckUsed participants’ responses in a game using modular robotic tiles to identify each individual child using a neural network model Spain Neural network model correctly identified individual behavioral patterns of the children with 88% accuracy2015 Kerstin DautenhahnUsing KASPAR humanoid- robot to interact with autism childrens. USA children with autism aged between four and fourteen years has shown a marked improvement in the behaviour and social activity of some children after spending time with KASPAR.
The robot promoted body awareness and a sense of self – helping children with autism to manage collaborative play and helping others to break their isolation.2014 Robins, Dickerson, Stribling, & Dautenhahn, Longitudinal study examining participants’ responses to dancing robot that performed nursery rhymes; Examined behaviors directed at robot and another humanEngland No significant results indicated. Possible trend of increased imitation in final two weeks of study.
Considerable individual differences observed in all behaviors.2011 SDuquette, Michaud, & Mercier, Measure participants responses to roPracticed imitation with a robot or human therapist across several domains, including facial expressions, and gesturesPoland Participants showed a greater interest in robot, but showed more imitation improvement on several variables with human therapist2016 B. Robins Æ K. Dautenhahn Æ R.
Te BoekhorstA. BillardRobotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism to help encourage social interaction skills Germanythe robot take all the childeren attention iin therarpy and show more responc to the robot2011 Jeff GoodmanRobots teaching children with ASD to mind read: A feasibility study of child – robot interaction during emotion – recognition training.USA Robots can be more predictable and less complex than interaction with humans, and may be more “comfortable” for autistic children
