=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3932/paper6
|storemode=property
|title=Investigating Nao's Impact on Promoting Motor Skills in Young Children with ASD (short paper)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3932/paper6.pdf
|volume=Vol-3932
|authors=Ilenia Amati,Berardina Nadja De Carolis,Stefania Massaro,Maria Grazia Miccoli,Giuseppe Palestra,Loredana Perla,Aurora Toma
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/f4mr/AmatiCMMPPT24
}}
==Investigating Nao's Impact on Promoting Motor Skills in Young Children with ASD (short paper)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3932/paper6.pdf
Investigating Nao’s Impact on Promoting Motor Skills in
Young Children with ASD
Ilenia Amati2 , Berardina De Carolis1,* , Stefania Massaro2 , Maria Grazia Miccoli1 ,
Giuseppe Palestra1,* , Loredana Perla2,* and Aurora Toma1
1
Department of Computer Science, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy
2
Department of Education, Psychology, Communication Sciences, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy
Abstract
This experimental study implemented a robot-based intervention in a preschool setting to explore how social
robotics can promote motor skills in young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The study involved
20 children aged 24 to 36 months, divided into two groups of ten, each including a child with autism. The research
aimed to develop specific robotic rehabilitation tools, enhance educators’ communicative skills, and assess the
NAO robot’s effectiveness during motor activity sessions for children with autism. Results indicated that children
were actively engaged with the robot, with those on the autism spectrum showing particular interest. Engagement
varied, with one ASD child’s curiosity driving involvement, while the other ASD child’s participation required
support by the educator in nurturing the child’s relationship with the robot and peers.
Keywords
social robots, motor skills, autism
1. Introduction
Social robots are the subject of particular attention in intervention practices with children with Autism
Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and are emerging as effective mediators in early interactions [1, 2, 3]. In-
novative research on the use of social robots for ASD children is shaping new approaches in early
childhood education [4]. Integrating robots into early childhood education presents an opportunity
to bridge the gap between traditional and modern pedagogical practices, fostering a more inclusive
environment. This approach is aligned with the framework that views inclusion as a complex concept
to be addressed in the context of class-group relations rather than through a deficit paradigm, and it
emphasizes equity as the right of students to universally designed learning opportunities [5, 6, 7]. An
increasing number of studies have identified motor difficulties in children with ASD that are likely to
affect social-communicative development negatively. An overview of the benefits of motor activity for
individuals with ASD reveals physical benefits such as improvement of gross and fine motor skills, and
enhancement of control and coordination [8, 9]. Additionally, there are benefits related to cognitive
and emotional growth. Finally, motor activity through peer interaction can improve skills related to
social interaction and communication. Most robot-based intervention studies are focused on improving
emotion or social skills. While those should be extensively studied, motor skills should not be neglected
since they are directly correlated with the severity of communication skills [10].
This paper examines the innovative aspect of robot-based interventions in preschool settings, namely
the potential of robotic technology to transform pedagogical approaches with children with ASD
through integration into early childhood inclusive education. It investigates the potential of these robots
as effective tools for enhancing social interaction and learning among young children. In particular,
this study explored the use of NAO, a social assistive robot, as a coach for preschool children’s motor
activities, including those with ASD. Positioned at the intersection of Socially Intelligent Robots and
Workshop on Advanced AI Methods and Interfaces for Human-Centered Assistive and Rehabilitation Robotics (a Fit4MedRob
event) - AIxIA 2024
*
Corresponding author.
†
These authors contributed equally.
$ berardina.decarolis@uniba.it (B. D. Carolis); giuseppe.palestra@uniba.it (G. Palestra); loredana.perla@uniba.it (L. Perla)
0000-0002-2689-137X (B. D. Carolis); 0000-0002-0159-2672 (G. Palestra)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
Figure 1: System Architecture. The workstation is equipped with the motor activity software module and the
NAOqi APIs. The workstation is connected to the robot via a Wi-Fi router.
Assistive Robots, Socially Assistive Robots (SAR) are designed to help students reduce social impairments
through social interaction [11].
2. System Architecture
The motor activity intervention for children with ASD is a targeted approach centered on body move-
ment, delivered by a physical therapist. This system comprises various hardware and software compo-
nents to create a comprehensive motor activity training platform leveraging social robotics, including:
• NAO V6 robot
• Windows 10 workstation
• Motor activity software module
• NAOqi APIs module
• Wi-Fi router
The system architecture is illustrated in Figure 1. It employs the NAO V6 humanoid social robot,
paired with a workstation featuring an Intel i7 8th generation CPU and 16 GB of RAM. Developed by
Aldebaran Robotics, the NAO robot stands 57 cm tall and weighs 4 kg. It boasts 25 Degrees of Freedom
(DoF)—11 for the lower limbs (legs and pelvis) and 14 for the upper limbs (trunk, arms, and head).
Additionally, the manufacturer offers a suite of software tools, including Choregraphe, which enables
users to design and test robot behaviors on either a simulated or real robot.
2.1. Motor activity system module
The motor activity intervention exercises were developed using Choregraphe, a rapid programming tool
provided by the robot’s manufacturer, along with Python. The developed software was installed on the
workstation and utilized NAOqi APIs to perform the five exercises of the intervention, incorporating
both speech and body movements. The motor activity software module includes a set of exercises for
motor intervention. In this study, motor activity exercises are defined as a collection of educational
and therapeutic approaches that address the individual’s body movement expression related to social,
emotional, and cognitive functioning, as facilitated by a psychiatric therapist.
In our study, a subset of five motor activity exercises has been implemented on the robot, including:
1. Raise both arms up and lower them down along the sides.
2. Raise the arms up and lower them down along the sides, alternating. First the left, then the right.
3. Knee bends, up and down (like a full sack and an empty sack).
4. Open both arms and then bring them back down along the sides (like an airplane).
5. Open the arms and then bring them back down along the sides, alternating. First the left, then
the right.
The system can provide a stimulus and give the child positive reinforcement. The reinforcement
consists of a randomly selected word from the following: great job!, well done!, very good!, good!,
great!, super!, yay!, fantastic!, you’re doing great!, how nice!, perfect!, very well!
3. Procedure
The study protocol obtained approval from the Ethics Committee of the Department of Education,
Psychology, and Communication Sciences at the University of Bari, confirming its compliance with
ethical standards for research involving human participants. Parents provided their consent by signing
an Informed Consent form, enabling their children’s participation in the study responsibly. Additionally,
they signed a data protection agreement to ensure the safeguarding of sensitive personal data related to
the children. The study examined the relationship established during motor activities in two compared
settings, specifically between a group of children and educational figures and a group of children and
the NAO robot. The experiments took place in ‘Le Matite Colorate Baby’ nursery school in Matera,
involving 20 children aged between 24 and 36 months, divided into two groups of ten subjects. Each
group included a child with autism.
The research had three main objectives:
1. to gather evidence for the creation of specific devices for robot co-piloted educational mediation;
2. to develop communicative-relational skills of educators in the context of nursery school, in the
presence of children with and without disabilities;
3. to evaluate the efficacy of the NAO robot as a support tool during motor activity sessions for
children with autism, examining the impact of interaction with the robot on children’s engagement
and attention and exploring whether interaction with the NAO robot can improve the motor
skills and coordination of children with autism.
The first phase saw the definition of research questions (RQ) by the research team: (RQ1) – Do children
with ASD show an improvement in motor skills after participating in Nao-led activities compared to
those led by the educator? (RQ2) – What differences in engagement exist between children with ASD in
Nao’s group and those in the control group? The video research process followed the following phases:
1. Video recording. The recording made it possible to capture the children’s interactions at different
moments of the motor activity and to observe situations, such as play, interaction with others,
interaction with the robot and interaction with the educator. It was important to ensure that
the children were comfortable and that the situations were representative of their everyday
environment. The children had become familiar with the Nao robot in the pre-research phase the
previous day.
2. Behavioral observation. The researchers observed the videos carefully, noting the behavior of the
children in the two groups. They focused on aspects such as verbal and non-verbal communication,
socialization, response to stimuli, and repetitive behaviors. To guide the analysis, the structured
observation forms constructed by the research team were used, inspired by the Autism in Children
Scale, the Checklist for Autism in Children.
4. Results
From the qualitative data collected, it can be deduced that: the groups of children participated actively
in the sessions coordinated by the Nao robot, especially in the first session, while they responded better
with the mediation of the educator in the second session. Regarding analyses of the behavior of children
with autism, the child in the first group (with Level II autism, impairment in the area of communication
and social interaction and limited interests and repetitive behaviors) showed signs of fatigue and
distraction during the activity, receiving support from the educator several times. The child in the
second group (child 2) showed more autonomous involvement and curiosity throughout the activities.
This may be due to the fact that, even if their level is the same, they are different in the spectrum, and
this outlines the need for personalized robot intervention. Moreover, the relationship between children
with and without autism and educators is of fundamental importance in the development and learning
of children. Educators provide emotional, cognitive and social support that helps children grow, learn
and develop in a healthy and balanced way. The child-educator relationship was characterized by
several key elements as empathy, trust, mutual understanding and the ability to adapt to individual
needs. Indeed, the educators have interpreted and responded to the nuances of emotions, non-verbal
signals and children’s needs, creating a safe and stimulating educational environment. On the other
hand, the relationship between children and robots is still in development and cannot completely replace
the relationship with educators. Robots can offer complementary educational support, but, at present,
they cannot provide the same range of interactions and personalized responses that educators can
offer. However, robots can play a significant role in supporting education, especially when used as
assistive tools or to support the learning of certain skills. Robots can provide immediate feedback,
personalized exercises, and represent interactive characters that engage and motivate children in
educational activities.
5. Conclusion
It is important to consider that the child-educator relationship and the child-robot relationship can
coexist and complement each other. Educators can use robots as additional resources to enrich the
educational experience, facilitate collaborative learning and encourage creativity and innovation. The
relationship between children with autism and robots can offer several significant benefits. Here are
some of the main advantages that emerged:
1. Communication and social interaction: robots can be programmed to interact with children with
autism in specific and predictable ways. This can facilitate communication and social interaction,
providing a comfortable and non-threatening environment for children. Robots can encourage
children to express their emotions, develop conversational skills and improve social skills.
2. Structured learning: children with autism tend to benefit from a structured and predictable
environment. Robots can provide structured learning activities and programs, adapted to the
individual needs of children. This can help children develop cognitive, language and motor skills
through interaction with the robot.
3. Reducing anxiety and stress: for many children with moderate or severe autism, social interactions
can be a source of anxiety and stress. Robots can provide a reassuring and less intimidating
alternative to interactions with humans. This can help children feel more comfortable and reduce
anxiety and stress during learning and socializing activities.
4. Neutral feedback: robots can provide neutral and consistent feedback to children with autism.
This can be especially helpful for children who may be sensitive or react negatively to human
feedback. The robot’s neutral feedback can be used to encourage and reinforce positive behaviors,
providing a non-judgmental learning environment.
5. Motivation and involvement: robots can be designed to be engaging and interesting for children
with autism. The interactive and playful features of robots can stimulate children’s motivation
and attention, encouraging interest in and commitment to learning activities.
References
[1] G. Palestra, G. Varni, M. Chetouani, F. Esposito, A multimodal and multilevel system for robotics
treatment of autism in children, in: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Social Learning
and Multimodal Interaction for Designing Artificial Agents, DAA ’16, Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3005338.3005341. doi:10.1145/
3005338.3005341.
[2] C. Grossard, G. Palestra, J. Xavier, M. Chetouani, O. Grynszpan, D. Cohen, Ict and autism care:
state of the art, Current opinion in psychiatry 31 (2018) 474–483.
[3] G. Palestra, B. De Carolis, F. Esposito, et al., Artificial intelligence for robot-assisted treatment of
autism., in: Waiah@ ai* ia, 2017, pp. 17–24.
[4] A. Gómez-Espinosa, J. C. Moreno, S. Pérez-de la Cruz, Assisted robots in therapies for children
with autism in early childhood, Sensors 24 (2024) 1503.
[5] L. Perla, V. Vinci, et al., Enhancing authentic assessment in higher education: leveraging digital
transformation and artificial intelligence», AIxEDU (2023) 1–7.
[6] L. Perla, et al., Per una didattica dell’inclusione. prove di formalizzazione, PEDAGOGIE E
DIDATTICHE (2013).
[7] N. M. F. OECD, Ten steps to equity in education”, 2007.
[8] Y.-Q. Ji, H. Tian, Z.-Y. Zheng, Z.-Y. Ye, Q. Ye, Effectiveness of exercise intervention on improving
fundamental motor skills in children with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and
meta-analysis, Frontiers in Psychiatry 14 (2023) 1132074.
[9] A. Crippa, C. Salvatore, P. Perego, S. Forti, M. Nobile, M. Molteni, I. Castiglioni, Use of machine
learning to identify children with autism and their motor abnormalities, Journal of autism and
developmental disorders 45 (2015) 2146–2156.
[10] M. Jouaiti, P. Henaff, Robot-based motor rehabilitation in autism: a systematic review, International
journal of social robotics 11 (2019) 753–764.
[11] N. Fang, C. Zhang, S. Sankaran, S. Ren, Role of socially assistive robots in reducing anxiety
and preserving autonomy in children, in: 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, 2022, pp. 754–759.