Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
International Journal of Social Robotics
Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics 9-10/2023

04.10.2023

Ethical Acceptability of Robot-Assisted Therapy for Children with Autism: A Survey From a Developing Country

verfasst von: Hoang-Long Cao, Thang Thien Tran, Thong Van Nguyen, Phuong Minh Nguyen, Tuan Van Nguyen, Vu Duc Truong, Hoang-Dung Nguyen, Chi-Ngon Nguyen

Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Ausgabe 9-10/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Little is known about people’s attitudes and expectations about using robots for children with autism on a global stage. To address this issue, we conducted an exploratory survey investigating the ethical acceptability of robot-assisted autism therapy in a developing country with respondents from Vietnam using the Ethical Acceptability Scale (EAS). We found that people in our sample have a higher positive view compared to European ones in a previous survey. However, they expressed certain concerns about robots replacing human therapists. In terms of robot appearances, they slightly preferred animal-like robots over human-like robots. Possible reasons can be low awareness and utilization of assistive technology for children with autism, influences from East Asian culture and audiovisual entertainment, and perceiving robots used in autism therapy as pets or toys. Additionally, we found no significant association between socio-demographic factors and the three EAS subscales. Our study contributes to a better understanding of how people from different social, cultural, and economic backgrounds perceive robot-assisted autism therapy, which is essential for designing ethical social robots and using them ethically.
Vorheriger Artikel Ethical Design of Social Robots in Aged Care: A Literature Review Using an Ethics of Care Perspective
Nächster Artikel The Power of Personal Ontologies: Individual Traits Prevail Over Robot Traits in Shaping Robot Humanization Perceptions

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Alcorn AM, Ainger E, Charisi V et al (2019) Educators’ views on using humanoid robots with autistic learners in special education settings in england. Front Robot AI 6:107CrossRef
2.
American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5, vol 5. American psychiatric association Washington, DCCrossRef
3.
Aymerich-Franch L, Ferrer I (2021) Socially assistive robots’ deployment in healthcare settings: a global perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:​2110.​07404
4.
Bainbridge WA, Hart J, Kim ES, et al (2008) The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. In: RO-MAN 2008-The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE, pp 701–706
5.
Baxter P, Kennedy J, Senft E, et al (2016) From characterising three years of hri to methodology and reporting recommendations. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, pp 391–398
6.
Belpaeme T (2020) Advice to new human-robot interaction researchers. Human-robot interaction. Springer, Newyork, pp 355–369CrossRef
7.
Cao HL, Gómez Esteban P, Albert DB et al (2017) A collaborative homeostatic-based behavior controller for social robots in human-robot interaction experiments. Int J Soc Robot 9(5):675–690
8.
Cao HL, Esteban PG, Bartlett M et al (2019) Robot-enhanced therapy: Development and validation of supervised autonomous robotic system for autism spectrum disorders therapy. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 26(2):49–58CrossRef
9.
Coeckelbergh M, Pop C, Simut R et al (2016) A survey of expectations about the role of robots in robot-assisted therapy for children with asd: ethical acceptability, trust, sociability, appearance, and attachment. Sci Eng Ethic 22(1):47–65CrossRef
10.
Colton MB, Ricks DJ, Goodrich MA et al (2009) Toward therapist-in-the-loop assistive robotics for children with autism and specific language impairment. Autism 24:25
11.
Conti D, Di Nuovo S, Buono S et al (2017) Robots in education and care of children with developmental disabilities: a study on acceptance by experienced and future professionals. Int J Soc Robot 9(1):51–62CrossRef
12.
Conti D, Cattani A, Di Nuovo S et al (2019) Are future psychologists willing to accept and use a humanoid robot in their practice? italian and english students’ perspective. Front psychol 10:2138CrossRef
13.
Dautenhahn K (2003) Roles and functions of robots in human society: implications from research in autism therapy. Robotica 21(4):443–452CrossRef
14.
Deng L, Rattadilok P (2020) The need for and barriers to using assistive technologies among individuals with autism spectrum disorders in china. Assis Technol 34(2):1–12
15.
Diehl JJ, Schmitt LM, Villano M et al (2012) The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a critical review. Res Autism Spectr Disord 6(1):249–262CrossRef
16.
Esteban PG, Baxter P, Belpaeme T et al (2017) How to build a supervised autonomous system for robot-enhanced therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder Paladyn,. J Behav Robot 8(1):18–38
17.
Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ (2011) Socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):24–31CrossRef
18.
Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):143–166MATHCrossRef
19.
Funabashi Y (1993) The asianization of asia. Foreign affairs pp 75–85
20.
Gnambs T, Appel M (2019) Are robots becoming unpopular? changes in attitudes towards autonomous robotic systems in europe. Comput Hum Behav 93:53–61CrossRef
21.
Goldsmith TR, LeBlanc LA (2004) Use of technology in interventions for children with autism. J Early Intensive Behav Interv 1(2):166
22.
Haring KS, Mougenot C, Ono F et al (2014) Cultural differences in perception and attitude towards robots. Int J Affect Eng 13(3):149–157CrossRef
23.
Haring KS, Silvera-Tawil D, Takahashi T, et al (2015) Perception of a humanoid robot: a cross-cultural comparison. In: 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, pp 821–826
24.
Haring KS, Silvera-Tawil D, Watanabe K, et al (2016) The influence of robot appearance and interactive ability in hri: a cross-cultural study. In: International conference on social robotics, Springer, pp 392–401
25.
Kaplan F (2004) Who is afraid of the humanoid? investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. Int J Hum Robot 1(03):465–480CrossRef
26.
Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015) Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. Int J Soc Robot 7(2):293–308CrossRef
27.
Lee KM, Jung Y, Kim J et al (2006) Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human-robot interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(10):962–973CrossRef
28.
Li D, Rau PL, Li Y (2010) A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int J Soc Robot 2(2):175–186CrossRef
29.
Lim V, Rooksby M, Cross ES (2021) Social robots on a global stage: establishing a role for culture during human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 13(6):1307–1333CrossRef
30.
MacDorman KF, Vasudevan SK, Ho CC (2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI Soc 23(4):485–510CrossRef
31.
Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T et al (2008) What people assume about humanoid and animal-type robots: cross-cultural analysis between japan, korea, and the united states. Int J Hum Robot 5(01):25–46CrossRef
32.
Odom SL, Thompson JL, Hedges S et al (2015) Technology-aided interventions and instruction for adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord 45(12):3805–3819CrossRef
33.
Olusanya BO, Davis AC, Wertlieb D et al (2018) Developmental disabilities among children younger than 5 years in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Global Health 6(10):e1100–e1121CrossRef
34.
Operto S (2019) Evaluating public opinion towards robots: a mixed-method approach. Paladyn, J Behav Robot 10(1):286–297CrossRef
35.
Peca A, Coeckelbergh M, Simut R et al (2016) Robot enhanced therapy for children with autism disorders: Measuring ethical acceptability. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 35(2):54–66CrossRef
36.
Pop CA, Simut R, Pintea S et al (2013) Can the social robot probo help children with autism to identify situation-based emotions? a series of single case experiments. Int J Hum Robot 10(03):1350025CrossRef
37.
Porayska-Pomsta K, Frauenberger C, Pain H et al (2012) Developing technology for autism: an interdisciplinary approach. Person Ubiquit Comput 16(2):117–127CrossRef
38.
39.
Revilla M, Ochoa C (2015) What are the links in a web survey among response time, quality, and auto-evaluation of the efforts done? Soc Sci Comput Rev 33(1):97–114CrossRef
40.
Ricks DJ, Colton MB (2010) Trends and considerations in robot-assisted autism therapy. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, IEEE, pp 4354–4359
41.
Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boerkhorst R, et al (2004) Robots as assistive technology-does appearance matter? In: RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No. 04TH8759), IEEE, pp 277–282
42.
Rudovic O, Lee J, Mascarell-Maricic L et al (2017) Measuring engagement in robot-assisted autism therapy: a cross-cultural study. Front Robot AI 4:36CrossRef
43.
Saleh MA, Hanapiah FA, Hashim H (2021) Robot applications for autism: a comprehensive review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 16(6):580–602CrossRef
44.
Sandgreen H, Frederiksen LH, Bilenberg N (2021) Digital interventions for autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analysis. J Autism Dev Disord 51(9):3138–3152CrossRef
45.
Scassellati B (2007) How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. Robotics research. Springer, Newyork, pp 552–563
46.
Schrum ML, Johnson M, Ghuy M, et al (2020) Four years in review: Statistical practices of likert scales in human-robot interaction studies. In: Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp 43–52
47.
Shahid S, Krahmer E, Swerts M (2014) Child-robot interaction across cultures: how does playing a game with a social robot compare to playing a game alone or with a friend? Comput Hum Behav 40:86–100CrossRef
48.
Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2011) Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):32–38MathSciNetCrossRef
49.
Sochanski M, Snyder K, Korneder J, et al (2021) Therapists’ perspectives after implementing a robot into autism therapy. In: 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, pp 1216–1223
50.
Swettenham J (1996) Can children with autism be taught to understand false belief using computers? J Child Psychol Psychiatry 37(2):157–165CrossRef
51.
Thill S, Pop CA, Belpaeme T et al (2012) Robot-assisted therapy for autism spectrum disorders with (partially) autonomous control: Challenges and outlook. Paladyn 3(4):209–217
52.
Van Herwegen J, Riby D (2014) Neurodevelopmental disorders: research challenges and solutions. Psychology Press, LondonCrossRef
53.
Vuong QH, Bui QK, La VP et al (2018) Cultural additivity: behavioural insights from the interaction of confucianism, buddhism and taoism in folktales. Palgrave Commun 4(1):1–15CrossRef
54.
Wainer J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Shell DA, et al (2006) The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In: ROMAN 2006-The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE, pp 117–122
55.
Ward M, Meade AW (2018) Applying social psychology to prevent careless responding during online surveys. Appl Psychol 67(2):231–263CrossRef
56.
Werry I, Dautenhahn K, Ogden B et al (2001) Can social interaction skills be taught by a social agent? the role of a robotic mediator in autism therapy. International conference on cognitive technology. Springer, Newyork, pp 57–74
57.
Wolbring G, Yumakulov S (2014) Social robots: views of staff of a disability service organization. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):457–468CrossRef
58.
Złotowski J, Khalil A, Abdallah S (2020) One robot doesn’t fit all: aligning social robot appearance and job suitability from a middle eastern perspective. AI Soc 35(2):485–500CrossRef
59.
Zubrycki I, Granosik G (2016) Understanding therapists’ needs and attitudes towards robotic support the roboterapia project. Int J Soc Robot 8(4):553–563CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Ethical Acceptability of Robot-Assisted Therapy for Children with Autism: A Survey From a Developing Country
verfasst von
Hoang-Long Cao
Thang Thien Tran
Thong Van Nguyen
Phuong Minh Nguyen
Tuan Van Nguyen
Vu Duc Truong
Hoang-Dung Nguyen
Chi-Ngon Nguyen
Publikationsdatum
04.10.2023
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
International Journal of Social Robotics / Ausgabe 9-10/2023
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Elektronische ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01060-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9-10/2023

International Journal of Social Robotics 9-10/2023 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Perceptions of Assistive Robots at Work: An Experimental Approach to Social Influence

OriginalPaper

Using Socially Assistive Robots in Speech-Language Therapy for Children with Language Impairments

OriginalPaper

Effects of Failure Types on Trust Repairs in Human–Robot Interactions

OriginalPaper

Designing Multi-Modal Conversational Agents for the Kitchen with Older Adults: A Participatory Design Study

Survey

Defining, Designing and Distinguishing Artificial Companions: A Systematic Literature Review

Correction

Correction to: Integrative Robo-Ethics: Uncovering Roboticists’ Attitudes to Ethics and Moving Forward

Premium Partner

    Marktübersichten

    Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen. 

    Zur Marktübersicht
    Bildnachweise