Lupine Publishers| Journal of Robotics and Mechanical Engineering
Abstract
Rob Autism project was
started in 2014, it aims at setting a therapy support for ASD (Autistic
Spectrum Disorder) teenagers based on robot and culture mediation. The center
of the therapy support is on the notion of liance, the capacity to build and
destroy links with the environment. Three points were addressed to restore
liance: individual, collective and social liance. The results show a
redefinition of the subjects’identity and their legitimacy as members of the
society. The experiments were organized in 20 working sessions of 1 hour and
involve six teenagers and three robots; the program is concluded with a final
public show restituting a robotic play designed during the working sessions. Up
to now, four groups were studied (24 participants in total).
Keywords: Rob
‘Autism; Autistic Spectrum Disorder; Social Learning; Robot; Programming
Introduction
Using robots as
mediators in therapy support of children and teenagers with Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD) has been performed for five decades. The first official project
was lead by Dautenhahn and Werry in the 90s 5, with the Aurora project. They
propose four robotic platform to study the behavior of ASD children facing a
robot, from the observation that ASD candidates had a natural attraction to
electronics (tablets, computers, robots or other machines). Dautnhahn and Werry
developed the robot companion paradigm (Robots as so- cial actors), where the
robot has preprogrammed functions to behave like a human being. It was used to
solicit an interlocutor to perform a given exercise concluded by
congratulations (successful answer) or request to do again (wrong answer).
The12 Insert Authors’ Names here robot would either face a single child
(communication skills), or a group of children (reproduction of movements).The
companion robot paradigm was accepted by all researchers since then, and
companies develop software to improve it, to make it behave more like a human
being, like a friend, a tutor, a teacher or a protector. The studies focused on
different aspects of the exercises to be performed to improve specific skills
like communication, behavior, motion, and so on [1-5]. Many researchers also
studied the aspect this companion robot should have (humanoid vs. non
humanoid), should it need articulated language or just generate sounds, lights
and color. Several robots were designed specifically for these studies, which
could not be reproduced by other researchers (nor approaches compared, as a
consequence) because the robots were not easy to obtain, expensive and needed
specific robotic skills. In 2009, Softbank Robotics released the NAO robot
which allowed many research teams to work with an affordable robots, the robots
being the same in the different team (the effect of the appearance of the robot
disappeared and comparison of the approaches were more realistic). New
exercises and solicitations for the ASD children were developed to improve
therapy support based on the companion robot [1,3]. Still, no current answer
exists to the following question: how do we replace the robot by a human being
and obtain the same reactivity with the human than with the robot?
The rob’ Autism project was initiated in 2014, proposing an alternative to the
companion robot paradigm. We have called it the extension robot paradigm, in
which the ASD person programs the robot to make it act on his / her behalf. The
operator becomes at the same time actor and spectator of his actions, remaining
protected behind the (rigid) body of the robot. In this approach, the operator
is not solicited by the robot, but becomes an acting person in the world. This
paper addresses the definition of a social individual to explain a possible
approach to use robotic mediation in therapy support for ASD teenagers,
pointing that the robot allows modifications of an individual but does not
operate the modifications. Then the therapy must be worked out carefully to
accompany the subject to rebuild his identity. Section 2 presents the specific
points of an individual definition that are used to design the therapy support,
section 3 describe the context of the experiments. Section 4 focuses on the
three levels of liance that are worked out during the 21 workshops of the
program, sections 5 analyzes the obtain results.
Between the Self and the World
An individual is that
which exists as a distinct entity within a group. It is a person separate from
other people and possessing his or her own needs or goals, rights and
responsibilities. Insert Paper’s Title here 3 The frontier between the self,
defined according one’s frame, and the world (the non-self), results from a
complex process which relies on several notions such as envelop, linking /
delinking dynamics, otherness and selfhood. This frontier is changing, in the
sense that it can be affected by external events (the making, adaptation to the
environment) or by internal events (the being, search for balance). It
guarantees a subtle and fragile balance of the individual, as it is permanently
crossed by a flow of information from outside-in and from inside-out. The
frontier leads to the definition of identity, which is studied by numerous
research areas: psychoanalyze, psychology, sociology, anthropology, semiotic,
and so on. The individual can be separate in two parts: a part that constitutes
it, and a part that allows it to (inter)act. Its constitution includes two
elements [1] a fixed, rigid and structured frame leading to a set of
unchangeable rules, knowledge and certainties [2] a strong-dynamics built from
a numerouscollisions between realities and imaginary, with a role of balancing
regulation (sensibility). The permanent movement is essential as it has a
balancing regulation role (the sensitivity). In this dual situation fixed frame
/ dynamic motion, the constituted individual evolves in a half-space: mobile
and immobile, at the same time.
Interaction is based on
perception and involves the notion of liance. It is a balance between reliance
and defiance. The reliance is the capability to establish links with the world
(transduction). It is said that it cannot happen without mediation. dalliance
is defined as “non-reliance”, and groups the capabilities to destroy links with
the world. The permanent flow of data between the individual and the world is
regulated by his/her capability to voluntarily create and destroy links with
other social individuals or objects. The rules constituting the frame can
evolve with the equilibrium between reliance and defiance, it is the social
learning process. This learning is made difficult in case the reliance deliance
events are too numerous, in which situation a rigid frame cannot exist; and
this too permanent dynamics generates anguish. The notion of temporality is
also important here, as the notion of time can only be difined with an adequate
identity definition, i.e. in a rigid, existing and identified frame. A robot is
defined in a half-space from its design: inanimate and animate, at the same
time. Real and imaginary, at the same time. A robot is a mediator, it connects
to the individual through his / her capability of reliance. Moreover, the robot
offers a simplified, rigid framework in which some actions can be performed,
which is reassuring for the user, who feels safe when interacting. The robot is
particularly adapted for ASD support, but the robot does not itself operate the
change: it takes the operator / interlocutor in its halfspace with the feeling
of safety that frees the capability of social learning. When the operator /
interlocutor is in the half-space, he / she can be reached by a therapy. The
work we proposed in the Rob’Autism project, and present thereafter, consists in
rebuilding the liance to redefine an individual with ASD, from face-to-face
discussions to group and society acknowledgment as a person.
Rob’Autism Project
Rob’Autism is a
multidisciplinary project linking medical, social sciences, arts, robotics and
computer sciences fields. It was born in 2014, and is a collaboration Nantes
(school of engineering) and the non-profit organization
Robots! (Robotics and arts). The project is supported by private organizations
mentioned in the thanks section. Rob’Autism consists in a therapy support for
teenagers with ASD; it lasts 21 weeks and it is based on voluntary interactions
between participants and the world using robots as prostheses in communication.
The participants program the robots to make them do or say whatever they want,
within the techno- logical limits of the machine. The robotics and non-robotics
workshops, as well as global organization and observed results of the program,
were described in [4-10].
The Robot Extension Paradigm
Rob’Autism program
proposes several originalities in comparison to classical ap- proaches, among
them the fact that the robot is not used as a companion. The robot is not
making any pre-programmed solicitation to a participant, but the par- ticipants
program it and use it as an extension of themselves. through the robot, they
can safely interact with the world. They do not behave as followers, but as
actors. They transfer their own creativity into the world, and their creativity,
their contribution to the world is recognized by the world. This allows them to
differentiate what acknowledge (the world) and what generates (the self),
identify the parties and have a better view of their frontier. When the
companion robot paradigm pre- vents from closing on oneself, the extension
robot paradigm offers an opening to the world, redefining identity and
replacing the individual at the center of the action. As previously mentioned,
the robot does not operate the change in the operator / interlocutor. But the
use of a robot is fundamental (particularly humanoid robot), as it places the
operator / interlocutor in a halfspace in which he / she can be more easily
reached by a therapy.
Subjects and Material
24 subjects, distributed
in four groups of six ASD teenagers aged from 11 to 16 years old participated
in this experiment: one group per year from 2014 to 2018 (21 boys and 3 girls).
All subjects’ parents gave written informed consent before entering the study.
The 24 subjects had some ability to read and write, but not all of them were
going to school for their education. They were all familiar with the use of a
computer. Some had met the other participants and workshop staff before the
program started, and some discovered them at the first session of the program.
There was no selection on a specific kind of autism. During one complete
program All the robotic sessions happen in the same room, and all the
non-programming sessions happen in a same room too, but different from the
programming sessions. The program uses 3 humanoid robots NAO from Softbank
Robotics. The robots are programmed by the subjects using the software
interface Choregraphe, which is the classical programming interface sold with
the robots (i.e., no specific software was used for the programming). Let us
remark that that software language is English whereas the participants were not
familiar with this language. For each session, except from the 6 participants,
5 people attended (always the same during one complete program): three nurses
who helped the participants focusing on the exercises and shared the
discovering with them. The nurses had a quick training on using the robot
before the programs started. One animator was also present in the room: either
a robot specialist for the programming sessions, or a sound specialist for the
nonprogramming sessions. At last, one supervisor led the program and attended
all the sessions (programming and nonprogramming), dealt with the families,
organized the operational part of the whole experimental program.
Program organization
Rob’Autism is organized
in 20 sessions of 1 hour each, once in a week, and is concluded by a public
show where external people are invited. The 20 sessions alternate 10 non-robot
programming and 10 robot programming work sessions 10. Here, a framework was defined
and strictly respected during the complete program: A music was played before a
session starts (always the same), another at the end of the session, the
positions of the tables, chairs and robots were always the same when the
teenagers arrived, the working staff was unchanged for the whole program.
Robot Mediation Used to Improve Reliance
Communicating is a
bilateral notion which supposes to give something (object, feeling, etc.) to
someone and accept something from someone. It is the first sign of recognition
as an individual by the outside world and a classical way of exchanging with
others, according to one’s definition of others. It cannot be performed when
the function allowing to identify the self and the other is damaged, such as in
ASD. As a consequence, the capability of communicating can be a way to evaluate
the ASD subjects’ evolution. During a program, communicating with others is
dealt with on three different levels of liance: individual, group and social
links will be worked out. We will describe in what follows each level of liance
and their respective observed impact on the subjects’ behaviors [6].
Individual liance
Individual liance takes
place with a person, an object (animated, such as a com- panion robot) or an
animal. It consists of both giving to and receiving from. As mentioned
previously, the participants work by binomials, so each can program the robot
during a given time (not fixed, according to the needed time to complete the
exercise) and have to let their binomial also program the robot until they have
finished their exercise. The subjects here never exchange anything with the
robot itself, as it is considered as a machine and not as an intentional
character. During the Rob’Autism program, the interaction with the world
focuses on people and not on machines, the robot is a tool allowing a protected
way to tell and do things to the others [7-9]. Alternate programming of the
robot is at first a difficult exercise. The reactions, not to share, are such
as holding firmly the keyboard or the mouse, while screaming or protesting
loudly, then become sending black and disagreeing looks. A first behavior is
not to give any interest on what the binomial is programming, trying to get the
attention by doing something else that needs attention from the nurse, holding
the nurse from helping the binomial to complete his/her programming.
Programming the robot is closely linked to catching another’s attention and
focus. Letting the binomial program generates a stress that cannot be controlled
by the teenager alone.
This situation can be controlled if the exercises are short enough and can be
performed several times in a session: when the teenager is allowed to go back
to programming quickly enough, the acceptance of individual exchange starts
while the stress lowers. The experimentation shows that 10 minutes exercises
(each teenager goes back three times to programming the robot during one
session) is a good com- promise between long enough exercise for elaboration,
focus time of the programmer and attention delay of the waiting binomial. An
evolution of the behaviors between the binomials is observed.
In the Case of Three Programming Exercises
Each Per Session:
a) At first, the other
binomial is rejected and attention of the nurse is at- tempted to be
monopolized. Observed stress reduction can be seen within the very first
robotic session, when the participant is allowed to program again once the
binomial has finished.
b) Curiosity to what the binomial is programming appears between the second and
the fourth robotic sessions, depending on the participant. A progression was
observed (same for all the participants) in showing curiosity: first is an
attention to what the other has programmed by watching the robot perform only
at the end of an exercise; second is to look directly what the other is
programming on the computer, during the exercise; third is to interact with
Insert Paper’s Title here [7] the binomial and help realizing the performance:
give opinion, give advice, explain programming, help with insuring robot
security, help with holding the robot in a configuration while the binomial is
registering it.
c) Complete acceptance of relying on the other is observed from the third
robotic session for all the subjects (no stress observed with the guaranty to
program again in a short time).
d) The progression in individual liance continues over the 20 workshop of the
pro- gram, we mentioned the main observation points of the changes. The
binomials positioning for individual liance is side by side, the center of
attention of the liance is the computer and the robot. Individual liance
impacts two factors for a partic- ipant: from pleasuring the self to accepting
delayed pleasure of the self; and from monopolizing one’s attention despite one
other to generating an interaction with one other. In the experiment, the
framework is insured: when the participants enter the room, they find the three
work stations in the same configuration, the present people are always the
same, the manner the exercises are explain do not change. The only changes are
the content of the exercises and the working pairs (different binomial at each
session). This helps constituting the group as a sort of mini society.
Individual liance is the most difficult one, as it needs constant contact and
attention in time, which is a demanding exercise for the ASD participants.
Group Liance
At the end of each
exercise, the three binomials are asked to stop all activities to show and
watch what was performed. Each demonstration is concluded by group applause.
Two types of communication exercises are realized with the robot: tell / show
the others about something personal, including programming abilities, or
address someone in particular with a personal message. The robot is allowed any
kind of message, including the use of “forbidden words” (slang and insults) 10.
Here, the timing is important: whatever time is needed to conclude the
exercise, the groups have to wait until the three are ready to perform all the
demonstrations. Group liance takes place faster than individual liance, as the
attention is more localized in time. The teenager can work his/her program in a
hidden way from the others, and shows his/her demonstration during a short time
to the others, still hidden as the group is watching the robot (not the
programmer). This focus in time makes it easier to handle than individual
liance, which takes place in a constant manner during the complete session.
The Effects of Group Liance can be Observed
from the very first Robotics Session:
First exercise the
participant programs the robot because and how it is asked. (then shows to
others, then applause from others, then watch others’ programming, then waiting
time for the binomial to do the exercise) Second exercise the participant
programs the robot because he/she has curiosity on how the robot behaves [8-
11]. (then shows to others, then applause from others, then watch others’
programming, then waiting time for the binomial to do the exercise) Third
exercise the participant programs the robot for the others and expects the
positive reaction from the others [11- 13]. The positive reactions appear
through the applause, which validates the creation of the participant. This
process transforms the participant through the robot mediator from a person to
an individual. He/She is identified by the group as a contributor of the
mini-society built in the framework of this project. The participant discovers
the pride of showing to others and to exist as a social being. During the first
robotics session, the candidates try the robot. they are still shy, they do not
know what will please the others. They can only get their attention using the
robotic mediation. From the third robotics session, they know each other much
better and start communicating with the others through the robot actions. Its
sayings will mention points that interest another participant (who is in
another binomial), or their robot will answer another robot which had
previously talked. The positioning for group liance is each binomials facing
the two other binomials, the center of attention are the respective robots. The
effects of group liance address the notion of intentionality: the participants
learn how to project themselves in time to please other beings in order to be
pleased by their reactions. The group is never changed during the complete
program. Its constitution is fixed, part of the frame. Some people may be
accidentally missing, participant or accompanying person, but no new face is
included in the program until the social liance.
Social Liance
Social liance is
performed only once, at the end of the program: the artistic creation realized
during the sessions is publicly shown. The public consists in around thirty
persons: they may be known or unknown by the participants, but they all
represent “the outside world”. A scene is set up for the show, on which the
programmed robot will make its performance. The six participants sit directly
in front of the scene, facing it. The rest of the public sits in the back of
the six participants. It is the first time that the participants discover their
complete show: before that event, they had seen only small parts of it while
they were creating it. As a consequence, they discover their creation at the
same time as the public, which generates a situation of shared experience in
this new assembly. Discovering the global result of putting together known
small actions leads to living an experience that is at the same time known and
unknown. The separate small actions are recognized but take a complete new
appearance when all put together, the story shows a new meaning. More than the
meaning, the participants [9] realize at this moment the extent of their small
contributions. The ascertainment of the greatness of their creation is directly
linked to the pride of what they have made. The link leads to realizing how to
generate something great step by step, which is equivalent to making a
projection in time. Let us recall here that time projection is particularly
lacking with the participants, at the beginning of Rob’Autism pro- gram. They
hardly can focus more than five minutes in the first robot programming session,
whereas they can focus the complete hour after four robotics session 10. As a
consequence of the small concentration time they have, time projection cannot
happen. At the end of the program, their mind is equipped with longer
concentration times. They can start making time projections. This is done at
the show restitution.
Acknowledgment from the
public follows the show, with applause. This acknowledgment validates their
being part of the society: they are officially recognized as contributors by
unknown people who represent “the outside world”; it is equivalent to an
initiatory introduction in the society (recognition by the pairs). From this
moment on, they can exist as social individuals, and not only as unidentified
persons.
Following the show, but questions from the public are also answered by the
accompanying people of the project. During the questions, the participants stay
sit and listen. They do not interfere even though there is no doubt they are
present in the scene. Social liance is concluded by a drink and cakes served at
a table and shared by all: public, participants and accompanying people. The
participants stay voluntarily in the room and depending on the group mix with
the society or stick together, reforming the group for talking and laughing.
Analysis and Complementary Results
The results observed in
the Rob’Autism program are qualitative. Up to now, they are based on
observation (the working sessions are monitored) and the program is adapted to
the tracked group of teenagers. Four groups of six teenagers with ASD were
studied, all of them reacted the same way as described in the previous section.
We give precisions here to points of the program that are important for
obtaining the results: Before a working session starts: The beginning of the
working session are organized in a way so that all the participants enter the
room together. This means a meeting space is organized outside the room, where
the participants arrive one by one until the group is complete. During this
meeting, where the parents do not attend (they drop their child and go), the
group can be formed again, and they start communicating together. Once they
have all arrived, they knock at the working session door, and the animator
opens the door. The participants enter one by one in the room, greeting the
animator [10] (always the same) by saying hello and shaking hands. The group
meeting outside the room allows the participants to enter the room already in
the group mode, so they can focus immediately on the mini society. Vocal
synthesis: there is a strong temptation to play with the vocal synthesis, not
in the objective to communicate with the world. Putting letters in random order
and testing the sounds coming out of the robot, improving the shape of the
sound until the operator is satisfied with it and ready to make it listen to
the others. Here, playing with the vocal synthesis or using it to communicate
(with organized sentences carrying a voluntary message) has very different
effect on the participant. No progress is made with the playing. They enjoy it,
it makes them work, they look for the group sharing moment, but they do not
improve voluntary communication. Training of the accompanying staff: During the
robotics working session, three nurses are dedicated to helping the
participants to focus on the exercises, one per binomial. So three people work
in each binomial. The accompanying staff was slightly trained during 12 hours before
the program starts, on how to program the robot. The accompanying staff is not
competent in robotics (medical staff mainly), and the training allows two
situations: a) autonomy for the simplest requests: where to find the “say” box
for example, how to connect the boxes, how to send the signal to the robot, and
so on. In this situation the link between participants and accompanying per-
son is based on pedagogy (individual sharing). b) need for help for the more
advanced functions, in that case participants and accompanying person are in
the same situation and have to deal with the unknown situation (group sharing).
Applause the applause stabilizes the working progress of the liance, it
generates satisfaction and pleasure that become an objective for the
participant. Applause represents the acknowledgment of the individual’s
contribution to the group / society. The contribution is Rob’Autism context is
never discussed nor oriented. As an example, one of the candidate only wanted
to make the robot count endless, taping 1 and making the robot say it, then
taping 2 and let the robot say it, then taping 3 and let the robot say it, and
so on. The participant’s contribution in this case is to make the robot count
up to ten, then generate the applause. After some time, the participant
accepted to use the vocal synthesis for other formulations with sentences, and
communicate with different intentions than just making the robot count. The
effects of Rob ’Autism program on the participant concern an appeasement of the
participants’ anguish. The common observation concerned the concentration times
and voluntary communication. The concentration time evolved from 5 consecutive
minutes in the first robotic workshop to the complete hour after four robotic
workshop. Nevertheless, the working time during one robotic workshop was
limited to 45 minutes, leaving 15 minutes for playing: making the robot talk
and communicating with the others through the robot. The voluntary
communication starts taking place when the group is formed and identified by
the participants, when they have been able to observe the others, see their
contribution and showed their own contribution to them. Not using the robot to
give personal impression starts in average at the seventh robotic session. Concerning
the anguish, each participant has different symptoms: crises, mutilation,
mutism and other isolation behaviors, screaming, absence, mirror behaviors,
search for containment, and so on. Evaluation was performed with the
participation of the parents of the participants, who observed a reduction in
the manifestations of anguish at home or outside the home 10 [14].
Conclusion
The robot extension
paradigm was addressed in this paper, in a complex experiment with ASD
teenagers. The participants programmed the robot, using it as a prosthesis in
communication, and were accompanied to improve stabilizing liance with the
world. To do so, they first identified their self and differentiated it from
the world (the not self), rebuilding their frontier to the world and redefining
their identity. Three levels of liance were worked out: individual liance,
dealing directly with another participant over time; group liance that allowed
identifying one’s contribution to the group and acknowledging recognition of
the contribution from the group; and social liance with the restitution of the
robot play that was realized during the 20 workshops of the program in front of
an external public, and concluded with applause. The results observed on the
participants show longer concentration times, better voluntary communication
and appeasement of the anguish (decreased symptoms, such as self-mutilation, mutism,
screaming, absence, mirror behaviors, and so on). The next step of this study
is to perform a regular evaluation of the participants to quantify their
evolution.
Rob’Autism project results from a collaboration between Centrale Nantes and the
non-profit organization Robots! Human, material and financial supports to this
project were also provided by the following institutions and companies: RFI
OIC, Faculty of speech specialists (Hospital of Nantes), Softbank Robotics,
Soprabanking, Foundation Terre Plurielle, ADN’Ouest, Lion’s Club, AG2R La
Mondiale, Caisse d’Epargne and EPSI.
