|
|||||
|
|
Who is a better teacher for children with autism? Comparison of learning outcomes between robot-based and human-based interventions in gestural production and recognition |
|
| Institution: | 1. Health Analysis Division, Statistics Canada, 100 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0T6, Canada;2. Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 4480 Oak Street, Room 2D19, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6H 3V4, Canada;3. School of Social Work, McGill University, 3506 University Street, #300, Montreal, Québec, H3A 2A7, Canada;4. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 511, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada;1. Institute of Intelligent Systems and Robotics, University Pierre and Marie Curie, 75005 Paris, France;2. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, APHP, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière et University Pierre and Marie Curie, 75013 Paris, France;3. University of Southampton, Southampton, UK;1. Department of Physical Therapy, Biomechanics and Movement Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA;2. Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA;3. Physical Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA;4. Center for Health, Intervention, and Prevention (CHIP), Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA;1. Babeş-Bolyai University, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania;2. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Clinical and Life Span Psychology Department, Brussel, Belgium;3. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Robotics and Multibody Mechanics Research Group, Brussel, Belgium |
| Abstract: | BackgroundIndividuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) tend to show deficits in engaging with humans. Previous findings have shown that robot-based training improves the gestural recognition and production of children with ASD. It is not known whether social robots perform better than human therapists in teaching children with ASD.AimsThe present study aims to compare the learning outcomes in children with ASD and intellectual disabilities from robot-based intervention on gestural use to those from human-based intervention.Methods and proceduresChildren aged six to 12 with low-functioning autism were randomly assigned to the robot group (N = 12) and human group (N = 11). In both groups, human experimenters or social robots engaged in daily life conversations and demonstrated to children 14 intransitive gestures in a highly-structured and standardized intervention protocol.Outcomes and resultsChildren with ASD in the human group were as likely to recognize gestures and produce them accurately as those in the robot group in both training and new conversations. Their learning outcomes maintained for at least two weeks.Conclusions and implicationsThe social cues found in the human-based intervention might not influence gestural learning. It does not matter who serves as teaching agents when the lessons are highly structured. |
| Keywords: | Intransitive gestures Children with ASD Robot-based intervention Human-based intervention |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ | |