People with Autism Spectrum Disorder Could Interact More Easily with a Robot than with a Human: Reasons and Limits

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder show deficits in communication and social interaction, as well as repetitive behaviors and restricted interests. Interacting with robots could bring benefits to this population, notably by fostering communication and social interaction. Studies even suggest that people with Autism Spectrum Disorder could interact more easily with a robot partner rather than a human partner. We will be looking at the benefits of robots and the reasons put forward to explain these results. The interest regarding robots would mainly be due to three of their characteristics: they can act as motivational tools, and they are simplified agents whose behavior is more predictable than that of a human. Nevertheless, there are still many challenges to be met in specifying the optimum conditions for using robots with individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Related collections

Most cited references 244

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

American Psychiatric Association (2013)

0 comments Cited 8122 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians.

S. Baron-Cohen, S Wheelwright, R. Skinner … (2001)

Currently there are no brief, self-administered instruments for measuring the degree to which an adult with normal intelligence has the traits associated with the autistic spectrum. In this paper, we report on a new instrument to assess this: the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Individuals score in the range 0-50. Four groups of subjects were assessed: Group 1: 58 adults with Asperger syndrome (AS) or high-functioning autism (HFA); Group 2: 174 randomly selected controls. Group 3: 840 students in Cambridge University; and Group 4: 16 winners of the UK Mathematics Olympiad. The adults with AS/HFA had a mean AQ score of 35.8 (SD = 6.5), significantly higher than Group 2 controls (M = 16.4, SD = 6.3). 80% of the adults with AS/HFA scored 32+, versus 2% of controls. Among the controls, men scored slightly but significantly higher than women. No women scored extremely highly (AQ score 34+) whereas 4% of men did so. Twice as many men (40%) as women (21%) scored at intermediate levels (AQ score 20+). Among the AS/HFA group, male and female scores did not differ significantly. The students in Cambridge University did not differ from the randomly selected control group, but scientists (including mathematicians) scored significantly higher than both humanities and social sciences students, confirming an earlier study that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills. Within the sciences, mathematicians scored highest. This was replicated in Group 4, the Mathematics Olympiad winners scoring significantly higher than the male Cambridge humanities students. 6% of the student sample scored 32+ on the AQ. On interview, 11 out of 11 of these met three or more DSM-IV criteria for AS/HFA, and all were studying sciences/mathematics, and 7 of the 11 met threshold on these criteria. Test-retest and interrater reliability of the AQ was good. The AQ is thus a valuable instrument for rapidly quantifying where any given individual is situated on the continuum from autism to normality. Its potential for screening for autism spectrum conditions in adults of normal intelligence remains to be fully explored.

0 comments Cited 784 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism.

Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, John T. Cacioppo (2007)

Anthropomorphism describes the tendency to imbue the real or imagined behavior of nonhuman agents with humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions, or emotions. Although surprisingly common, anthropomorphism is not invariant. This article describes a theory to explain when people are likely to anthropomorphize and when they are not, focused on three psychological determinants--the accessibility and applicability of anthropocentric knowledge (elicited agent knowledge), the motivation to explain and understand the behavior of other agents (effectance motivation), and the desire for social contact and affiliation (sociality motivation). This theory predicts that people are more likely to anthropomorphize when anthropocentric knowledge is accessible and applicable, when motivated to be effective social agents, and when lacking a sense of social connection to other humans. These factors help to explain why anthropomorphism is so variable; organize diverse research; and offer testable predictions about dispositional, situational, developmental, and cultural influences on anthropomorphism. Discussion addresses extensions of this theory into the specific psychological processes underlying anthropomorphism, applications of this theory into robotics and human-computer interaction, and the insights offered by this theory into the inverse process of dehumanization. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved.