skip to main content
10.1145/3371382.3378340acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

"Sorry to Disturb You": Autism and Robot Interruptions

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 April 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Here, we present a novel experiment on the yet unstudied phenomenon of ASC adults' responses to interruption, using a robot role-play clerical task. Using an IQ, gender, and task parameter matched NT control sample, we found that adults with ASC experience marginally less task disruption from a robot interrupter comparatively to a human. We surmise that robot-assisted therapy for adults with the condition is a potential research avenue worth further exploration.

References

  1. Jelmer P. Borst, Niels A. Taatgen, and Hedderik van Rijn. 2015. What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2971--2980. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702156Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. British National Corpus. 2007. The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). Technical Report. University of Oxford. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Moira Burke, Robert Kraut, and Diane Williams. 2010. Social use of computermediated communication by adults on the autism spectrum. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718991Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mary Czerwinski, Eric Horvitz, and Susan Wilhite. 2004. A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '04. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 175--182. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985715Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Joshua J. Diehl, Lauren M. Schmitt, Michael Villano, and Charles R. Crowell. 2012. The clinical use of robots for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A critical review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 6, 1 (1 2012), 249--262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Robert W. Frick. 1995. Accepting the null hypothesis. Memory & Cognition 23, 1 (1 1995), 132--138. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210562Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christopher Jarrold and Jon Brock. 2004. To Match or Not to Match? Methodological Issues in Autism-Related Research. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000018078.82542.abGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Michelle Kandalaft, Nyaz Didehbani, Daniel Krawczyk, Tandra Allen, and Sandra Chapman. 2013. Virtual Reality Social Cognition Training for Young Adults with High-Functioning Autism. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012--1544--6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sophie Leroy. 2009. Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 109, 2 (7 2009), 168--181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, Odette Megnin-Viggars, Nadir Cheema, Patricia Howlin, Simon Baron-Cohen, and Stephen Pilling. 2014. The cost-effectiveness of supported employment for adults with autism in the United Kingdom. Autism 18, 8 (11 2014), 975--984. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313505720Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Carolyn B. Mervis and Bonita P. Klein-Tasman. 2004. Methodological Issues in Group-Matching Designs: ? Levels for Control Variable Comparisons and Measurement Characteristics of Control and Target Variables. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/B:JADD.0000018069.69562.b8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. National Autisitic Society. 2016. The autism employment gap: Too Much Information in the workplace. Technical Report. National Autistic Society. https: //www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/campaign/employment.aspxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Joshua Wainer, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Ben Robins, and Farshid Amirabdollahian. 2014. A Pilot Study with a Novel Setup for Collaborative Play of the Humanoid Robot KASPAR with Children with Autism. International Journal of Social Robotics (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0195-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. DWechsler. 2011. Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence - Second Edition. NCS Pearson Inc., Bloomington, MN, USA. 1--244 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. John D. Westbrook, Chad Nye, Carlton J. Fong, Judith T. Wan, Tara Cortopassi, and Frank H. Martin. 2012. Adult Employment Assistance Services for Persons with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Effects on Employment Outcomes. Campbell Systematic Reviews 8, 1 (1 2012), 1--68. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2012.5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. "Sorry to Disturb You": Autism and Robot Interruptions

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          HRI '20: Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
          March 2020
          702 pages
          ISBN:9781450370578
          DOI:10.1145/3371382

          Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 April 2020

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • abstract

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate192of519submissions,37%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader