A comparison of kindergarten storytelling by human and humanoid robot with different social behavior

In this paper, we present a study on the influence of different social behavior on preschool children's perception of stories narrated either by a humanoid robot or by a human teacher. Four conditions were considered: static human, static robot, expressive human and expressive robot. Two stories, with knowledge and emotional content, were narrated in two different encounters. After each story, children draw what they remember of the story. We examined drawings of 81 children to study whether the sociability of the teacher (robot or human) could influence elements and details recorded. Results suggest a positive effect of the expressive behavior in robot storytelling, whose efficacy is comparable to the human with the same behavior or better if the expressive robot is compared with a static inexpressive human

“Robot, tell me a tale!”: A Social Robot as tool for Teachers in Kindergarten

Robots are versatile devices that are promising tools for supporting teaching and learning in the classroom or at home. In fact, robots can be engaging and motivating, especially for young children. This paper presents an experimental study with 81 kindergarten children on memorizations of two tales narrated by a humanoid robot. Variables of the study are the content of the tales (knowledge or emotional) and the different social behaviour of the narrators: static human, static robot, expressive human, and expressive robot. Results suggest a positive effect of the expressive behaviour in robot storytelling, whose effectiveness is comparable to a human with the same behaviour and better when compared with a static inexpressive human. Higher efficacy is achieved by the robot in the tale with knowledge content, while the limited capability to express emotions made the robot less effective in the tale with emotional content

Kindergarten Children Attitude Towards Humanoid Robots: what is the Effect of the First Experience?

Possible applications of robots are growing in educational contexts, where they can support and enhance the traditional learning at any level, including kindergarten. However, the acceptance of such novel technology among the kids is not fully understood, especially for the youngest ones. In this abstract, we present an experiment that investigates the attitude of 52 preschooler children before and after the interaction with a humanoid robot in kindergarten setting. The main hypothesis is that ideas and prejudices can change after a controlled interaction with a physical robot. The study found that children exposed to the robot decrease their distress and positively change their attitude toward the technological device. The results suggest that an early, controlled exposure may facilitate future acceptance

Personality factors and acceptability of socially assistive robotics in teachers with and without specialized training for children with disability

Personality factors can be predictors of acceptability and intention to use new technologies, especially regarding education and care fields in the whole lifespan. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive factors and attitudes of curricular and specialized teachers towards socially assistive robotics and the intention to use robots in teaching activities. In our research, we investigated the impact of the personality factors measured with the Big Five Questionnaire, on acceptability questionnaires derived by Eurobarometer and by the model Unified Theory of the Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), administered respectively before and after showing the possible uses of the robot NAO in education and teaching. The study was conducted in four schools, participants were 114 teachers (52.07 ± 8.22), aged 26 to 68 years, of the primary and middle school level. The results highlight the primary role of the personality factors Openness to Experience and Extraversion for promoting the acceptability and reduce the prejudicial reject regarding the use of educational and assistive robotic technologies. In conclusion, for using at best robotics in education, teachers need to receive appropriate training - also on the basis of their attitudes and personality traits - to learn how to plan their educational activities integrating the robotics tool

Guidance in storytelling tables supports emotional development in kindergartners

Promoting the social-emotional development of kindergartners is of special relevance as will lay the foundations for emotion regulation in later childhood and adulthood stages. Considering that tangible storytelling tables are already used for language and literacy skills in kindergarten, we addressed the problem of designing a storytelling intervention aimed at social-emotional development suitable in such a context by using an emotional laden story as content and embedding a guidance method that can be implemented with either a human or robot guide to enhance the learning setting. The study considered two guided storytelling activities (one traditional guided by the teacher, and one in which guidance was provided by a robot) and a control condition without additional guidance. The three conditions were compared in terms of kindergartners’ enactment process, an emotion recognition test and a story recall test. The results show that the guidance method properly supported emotion naming, children involvement and goal completion during the storytelling activity whereas the intervention supported the learning gain on emotion recognition. The study revealed that both robot and human guidance did not differ significantly in the performance tests but did outperform the control. In view of the results, this research is helpful for researchers and teachers to create in an informed way a range of environments in the kindergarten class based on storytelling tables, either with or without guidance, and with or without robot support. Future work may further investigate how specific interaction issues concerning robot embodiment (e.g., voice and behavioral cues to direct children’s attention) might enhance or not the children’s performanceOpen Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This work has partially been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities under Juan de la Cierva programme (IJC2018–037522-I). The writing of this work has received financial support from the Consellería de Educación, Universidade e Formación Profesional (accreditation 2019–2022 ED431G-2019/04, reference ED431C2022/19) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)S

Robot tutors:Welcome or ethically questionable?

Robot tutors provide new opportunities for education. However, they also introduce moral challenges. This study reports a systematic literature re-view (N = 256) aimed at identifying the moral considerations related to ro-bots in education. While our findings suggest that robot tutors hold great potential for improving education, there are multiple values of both (special needs) children and teachers that are impacted (positively and negatively) by its introduction. Positive values related to robot tutors are: psychological welfare and happiness, efficiency, freedom from bias and usability. However, there are also concerns that robot tutors may negatively impact these same values. Other concerns relate to the values of friendship and attachment, human contact, deception and trust, privacy, security, safety and accountability. All these values relate to children and teachers. The moral values of other stakeholder groups, such as parents, are overlooked in the existing literature. The results suggest that, while there is a potential for ap-plying robot tutors in a morally justified way, there are imported stake-holder groups that need to be consulted to also take their moral values into consideration by implementing tutor robots in an educational setting. (from Narcis.nl

Boosting children's creativity through creative interactions with social robots

Creativity is an ability with psychological and developmental benefits. Creative levels are dynamic and oscillate throughout life, with a first major decline occurring at the age of 7 years old. However, creativity is an ability that can be nurtured if trained, with evidence suggesting an increase in this ability with the use of validated creativity training. Yet, creativity training for young children (aged between 6-9 years old) appears as scarce. Additionally, existing training interventions resemble test-like formats and lack of playful dynamics that could engage children in creative practices over time. This PhD project aimed at contributing to creativity stimulation in children by proposing to use social robots as intervention tools, thus adding playful and interactive dynamics to the training. Towards this goal, we conducted three studies in schools, summer camps, and museums for children, that contributed to the design, fabrication, and experimental testing of a robot whose purpose was to re-balance creative levels. Study 1 (n = 140) aimed at testing the effect of existing activities with robots in creativity and provided initial evidence of the positive potential of robots for creativity training. Study 2 (n = 134) aimed at including children as co-designers of the robot, ensuring the robot’s design meets children’s needs and requirements. Study 3 (n = 130) investigated the effectiveness of this robot as a tool for creativity training, showing the potential of robots as creativity intervention tools. In sum, this PhD showed that robots can have a positive effect on boosting the creativity of children. This places social robots as promising tools for psychological interventions.Criatividade é uma habilidade com benefícios no desenvolvimento saudável. Os níveis de criatividade são dinâmicos e oscilam durante a vida, sendo que o primeiro maior declínio acontece aos 7 anos de idade. No entanto, a criatividade é uma habilidade que pode ser nutrida se treinada e evidências sugerem um aumento desta habilidade com o uso de programas validados de criatividade. Ainda assim, os programas de criatividade para crianças pequenas (entre os 6-9 anos de idade) são escassos. Adicionalmente, estes programas adquirem o formato parecido ao de testes, faltando-lhes dinâmicas de brincadeira e interatividade que poderão motivar as crianças a envolverem-se em práticas criativas ao longo do tempo. O presente projeto de doutoramento procurou contribuir para a estimulação da criatividade em crianças propondo usar robôs sociais como ferramenta de intervenção, adicionando dinâmicas de brincadeira e interação ao treino. Assim, conduzimos três estudos em escolas, campos de férias, e museus para crianças que contribuíram para o desenho, fabricação, e teste experimental de um robô cujo objetivo é ser uma ferramenta que contribui para aumentar os níveis de criatividade. O Estudo 1 (n = 140) procurou testar o efeito de atividade já existentes com robôs na criatividade e mostrou o potencial positivo do uso de robôs para o treino criativo. O Estudo 2 (n = 134) incluiu crianças como co-designers do robô, assegurando que o desenho do robô correspondeu às necessidades das crianças. O Estudo 2 (n = 130) investigou a eficácia deste robô como ferramenta para a criatividade, demonstrando o seu potencial para o treino da criatividade. Em suma, o presente doutoramento mostrou que os robôs poderão ter um potencial criativo em atividades com crianças. Desta forma, os robôs sociais poderão ser ferramentas promissoras em intervenções na psicologia

Interactive spaces for children: gesture elicitation for controlling ground mini-robots

[EN] Interactive spaces for education are emerging as a mechanism for fostering children's natural ways of learning by means of play and exploration in physical spaces. The advanced interactive modalities and devices for such environments need to be both motivating and intuitive for children. Among the wide variety of interactive mechanisms, robots have been a popular research topic in the context of educational tools due to their attractiveness for children. However, few studies have focused on how children would naturally interact and explore interactive environments with robots. While there is abundant research on full-body interaction and intuitive manipulation of robots by adults, no similar research has been done with children. This paper therefore describes a gesture elicitation study that identified the preferred gestures and body language communication used by children to control ground robots. The results of the elicitation study were used to define a gestural language that covers the different preferences of the gestures by age group and gender, with a good acceptance rate in the 6-12 age range. The study also revealed interactive spaces with robots using body gestures as motivating and promising scenarios for collaborative or remote learning activities.This work is funded by the European Development Regional Fund (EDRF-FEDER) and supported by the Spanish MINECO (TIN2014-60077-R). The work of Patricia Pons is supported by a national grant from the Spanish MECD (FPU13/03831). Special thanks are due to the children and teachers of the Col-legi Public Vicente Gaos for their valuable collaboration and dedication.Pons Tomás, P.; Jaén Martínez, FJ. (2020). Interactive spaces for children: gesture elicitation for controlling ground mini-robots. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. 11(6):2467-2488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01290-6S24672488116Alborzi H, Hammer J, Kruskal A et al (2000) Designing StoryRooms: interactive storytelling spaces for children. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, and techniques—DIS’00. ACM Press, New York, pp 95–104Antle AN, Corness G, Droumeva M (2009) What the body knows: exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interact Comput 21:66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.10.005Belpaeme T, Baxter PE, Read R et al (2013) Multimodal child–robot interaction: building social bonds. J Human-Robot Interact 1:33–53. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.2.BelpaemeBenko H, Wilson AD, Zannier F, Benko H (2014) Dyadic projected spatial augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology—UIST’14, pp 645–655Bobick AF, Intille SS, Davis JW et al (1999) The KidsRoom: a perceptually-based interactive and immersive story environment. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 8:367–391. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566297Bonarini A, Clasadonte F, Garzotto F, Gelsomini M (2015) Blending robots and full-body interaction with large screens for children with intellectual disability. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 351–354Cauchard JR, E JL, Zhai KY, Landay JA (2015) Drone & me: an exploration into natural human–drone interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing—UbiComp’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 361–365Connell S, Kuo P-Y, Liu L, Piper AM (2013) A Wizard-of-Oz elicitation study examining child-defined gestures with a whole-body interface. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’13. ACM Press, New York, pp 277–280Derboven J, Van Mechelen M, Slegers K (2015) Multimodal analysis in participatory design with children. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 2825–2828Dong H, Danesh A, Figueroa N, El Saddik A (2015) An elicitation study on gesture preferences and memorability toward a practical hand-gesture vocabulary for smart televisions. IEEE Access 3:543–555. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2432679Druin A (1999) Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors computer system CHI is limit—CHI’99, vol 14, pp 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303166Druin A (2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behav Inf Technol 21:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110108659Druin A, Bederson B, Boltman A et al (1999) Children as our technology design partners. In: Druin A (ed) The design of children’s technology. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, pp 51–72Epps J, Lichman S, Wu M (2006) A study of hand shape use in tabletop gesture interaction. CHI’06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA’06. ACM Press, New York, pp 748–753Fender AR, Benko H, Wilson A (2017) MeetAlive : room-scale omni-directional display system for multi-user content and control sharing. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM international conference on interactive surfaces and spaces, pp 106–115Fernandez RAS, Sanchez-Lopez JL, Sampedro C et al (2016) Natural user interfaces for human–drone multi-modal interaction. In: 2016 international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS). IEEE, New York, pp 1013–1022Garcia-Sanjuan F, Jaen J, Nacher V, Catala A (2015) Design and evaluation of a tangible-mediated robot for kindergarten instruction. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology—ACE’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–11Garcia-Sanjuan F, Jaen J, Jurdi S (2016) Towards encouraging communication in hospitalized children through multi-tablet activities. In: Proceedings of the XVII international conference on human computer interaction, pp 29.1–29.4Gindling J, Ioannidou A, Loh J et al (1995) LEGOsheets: a rule-based programming, simulation and manipulation environment for the LEGO programmable brick. In: Proceedings of symposium on visual languages. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp 172–179Gonzalez B, Borland J, Geraghty K (2009) Whole body interaction for child-centered multimodal language learning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on child, computer and interaction—WOCCI’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–5Grønbæk K, Iversen OS, Kortbek KJ et al (2007) Interactive floor support for kinesthetic interaction in children learning environments. In: Human–computer interaction—INTERACT 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 361–375Guha ML, Druin A, Chipman G et al (2005) Working with young children as technology design partners. Commun ACM 48:39–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/1039539.1039567Hansen JP, Alapetite A, MacKenzie IS, Møllenbach E (2014) The use of gaze to control drones. In: Proceedings of the symposium on eye tracking research and applications—ETRA’14. ACM Press, New York, pp 27–34Henkemans OAB, Bierman BPB, Janssen J et al (2017) Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. Int J Hum Comput Stud 106:63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.001Horn MS, Crouser RJ, Bers MU (2011) Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 16:379–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404-2Hourcade JP (2015) Child computer interaction. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, North CharlestonHöysniemi J, Hämäläinen P, Turkki L (2004) Wizard of Oz prototyping of computer vision based action games for children. Proceeding of the 2004 conference on interaction design and children building a community—IDC’04. ACM Press, New York, pp 27–34Höysniemi J, Hämäläinen P, Turkki L, Rouvi T (2005) Children’s intuitive gestures in vision-based action games. Commun ACM 48:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1039539.1039568Hsiao H-S, Chen J-C (2016) Using a gesture interactive game-based learning approach to improve preschool children’s learning performance and motor skills. Comput Educ 95:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.005Jokela T, Rezaei PP, Väänänen K (2016) Using elicitation studies to generate collocated interaction methods. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on human–computer interaction with mobile devices and services adjunct, pp 1129–1133. https://doi.org/10.1145/2957265.2962654Jones B, Benko H, Ofek E, Wilson AD (2013) IllumiRoom: peripheral projected illusions for interactive experiences. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’13, pp 869–878Jones B, Shapira L, Sodhi R et al (2014) RoomAlive: magical experiences enabled by scalable, adaptive projector-camera units. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology—UIST’14, pp 637–644Kaminski M, Pellino T, Wish J (2002) Play and pets: the physical and emotional impact of child-life and pet therapy on hospitalized children. Child Heal Care 31:321–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326888CHC3104_5Karam M, Schraefel MC (2005) A taxonomy of gestures in human computer interactions. In: Technical report in electronics and computer science, pp 1–45Kistler F, André E (2013) User-defined body gestures for an interactive storytelling scenario. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinform) 8118:264–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_17Konda KR, Königs A, Schulz H, Schulz D (2012) Real time interaction with mobile robots using hand gestures. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 177–178Kray C, Nesbitt D, Dawson J, Rohs M (2010) User-defined gestures for connecting mobile phones, public displays, and tabletops. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services—MobileHCI’10. ACM Press, New York, pp 239–248Kurdyukova E, Redlin M, André E (2012) Studying user-defined iPad gestures for interaction in multi-display environment. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on intelligent user interfaces—IUI’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 93–96Lambert V, Coad J, Hicks P, Glacken M (2014) Social spaces for young children in hospital. Child Care Health Dev 40:195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12016Lee S-S, Chae J, Kim H et al (2013) Towards more natural digital content manipulation via user freehand gestural interaction in a living room. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing—UbiComp’13. ACM Press, New York, p 617Malinverni L, Mora-Guiard J, Pares N (2016) Towards methods for evaluating and communicating participatory design: a multimodal approach. Int J Hum Comput Stud 94:53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.004Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18:50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491Marco J, Cerezo E, Baldassarri S et al (2009) Bringing tabletop technologies to kindergarten children. In: Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group annual conference on people and computers: celebrating people and technology, pp 103–111Michaud F, Caron S (2002) Roball, the rolling robot. Auton Robots 12:211–222. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014005728519Micire M, Desai M, Courtemanche A et al (2009) Analysis of natural gestures for controlling robot teams on multi-touch tabletop surfaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces—ITS’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 41–48Mora-Guiard J, Crowell C, Pares N, Heaton P (2016) Lands of fog: helping children with autism in social interaction through a full-body interactive experience. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 262–274Morris MR (2012) Web on the wall: insights from a multimodal interaction elicitation study. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM Press, New York, pp 95–104Morris MR, Wobbrock JO, Wilson AD (2010) Understanding users’ preferences for surface gestures. Proc Graph Interface 2010:261–268Nacher V, Garcia-Sanjuan F, Jaen J (2016) Evaluating the usability of a tangible-mediated robot for kindergarten children instruction. In: 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT). IEEE, New York, pp 130–132Nahapetyan VE, Khachumov VM (2015) Gesture recognition in the problem of contactless control of an unmanned aerial vehicle. Optoelectron Instrum Data Process 51:192–197. https://doi.org/10.3103/S8756699015020132Obaid M, Häring M, Kistler F et al (2012) User-defined body gestures for navigational control of a humanoid robot. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), pp 367–377Obaid M, Kistler F, Häring M et al (2014) A framework for user-defined body gestures to control a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 6:383–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0233-3Obaid M, Kistler F, Kasparavičiūtė G, et al (2016) How would you gesture navigate a drone?: a user-centered approach to control a drone. In: Proceedings of the 20th international academic Mindtrek conference—AcademicMindtrek’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 113–121Pares N, Soler M, Sanjurjo À et al (2005) Promotion of creative activity in children with severe autism through visuals in an interactive multisensory environment. In: Proceeding of the 2005 conference on interaction design and children—IDC’05. ACM Press, New York, pp 110–116Pfeil K, Koh SL, LaViola J (2013) Exploring 3D gesture metaphors for interaction with unmanned aerial vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on intelligent user interfaces—IUI’13, pp 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1145/2449396.2449429Piaget J (1956) The child’s conception of space. Norton, New YorkPiaget J (1973) The child and reality: problems of genetic psychology. Grossman, New YorkPiumsomboon T, Clark A, Billinghurst M, Cockburn A (2013) User-defined gestures for augmented reality. CHI’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA’13. ACM Press, New York, pp 955–960Pons P, Carrión A, Jaen J (2018) Remote interspecies interactions: improving humans and animals’ wellbeing through mobile playful spaces. Pervasive Mob Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2018.12.003Puranam MB (2005) Towards full-body gesture analysis and recognition. University of Kentucky, LexingtonPyryeskin D, Hancock M, Hoey J (2012) Comparing elicited gestures to designer-created gestures for selection above a multitouch surface. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces—ITS’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10Raffle HS, Parkes AJ, Ishii H (2004) Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. System 6:647–654. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985774Read JC, Markopoulos P (2013) Child–computer interaction. Int J Child-Comput Interact 1:2–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.09.001Read JC, Macfarlane S, Casey C (2002) Endurability, engagement and expectations: measuring children’s fun. In: Interaction design and children, pp 189–198Read JC, Markopoulos P, Parés N et al (2008) Child computer interaction. In: Proceeding of the 26th annual CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI’08. ACM Press, New York, pp 2419–2422Robins B, Dautenhahn K (2014) Tactile interactions with a humanoid robot: novel play scenario implementations with children with autism. Int J Soc Robot 6:397–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0228-0Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Nehaniv CL (2008) Behaviour delay and robot expressiveness in child–robot interactions: a user study on interaction kinesics. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACMIEEE international conference on human robot interaction, pp 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349826Ruiz J, Li Y, Lank E (2011) User-defined motion gestures for mobile interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’11. ACM Press, New York, p 197Rust K, Malu M, Anthony L, Findlater L (2014) Understanding childdefined gestures and children’s mental models for touchscreen tabletop interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on interaction design and children—IDC’14. ACM Press, New York, pp 201–204Salter T, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R (2006) Learning about natural human-robot interaction styles. Robot Auton Syst 54:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2005.09.022Sanghvi J, Castellano G, Leite I et al (2011) Automatic analysis of affective postures and body motion to detect engagement with a game companion. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’11. ACM Press, New York, pp 305–311Sanna A, Lamberti F, Paravati G, Manuri F (2013) A Kinect-based natural interface for quadrotor control. Entertain Comput 4:179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2013.01.001Sato E, Yamaguchi T, Harashima F (2007) Natural interface using pointing behavior for human–robot gestural interaction. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 54:1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2007.892728Schaper M-M, Pares N (2016) Making sense of body and space through full-body interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 613–618Schaper M-M, Malinverni L, Pares N (2015) Sketching through the body: child-generated gestures in full-body interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 255–258Seyed T, Burns C, Costa Sousa M et al (2012) Eliciting usable gestures for multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces—ITS’12. ACM Press, New York, p 41Shimon SSA, Morrison-Smith S, John N et al (2015) Exploring user-defined back-of-device gestures for mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on human–computer interaction with mobile devices and services—MobileHCI’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 227–232Sipitakiat A, Nusen N (2012) Robo-blocks: a tangible programming system with debugging for children. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’12. ACM Press, New York, p 98Soler-Adillon J, Ferrer J, Pares N (2009) A novel approach to interactive playgrounds: the interactive slide project. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 131–139Stiefelhagen R, Fogen C, Gieselmann P et al (2004) Natural human–robot interaction using speech, head pose and gestures. In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566). IEEE, New York, pp 2422–2427Subrahmanyam K, Greenfield PM (1994) Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. J Appl Dev Psychol 15:13–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(94)90004-3Sugiyama J, Tsetserukou D, Miura J (2011) NAVIgoid: robot navigation with haptic vision. In: SIGGRAPH Asia 2011 emerging technologies SA’11, vol 15, p 4503. https://doi.org/10.1145/2073370.2073378Takahashi T, Morita M, Tanaka F (2012) Evaluation of a tricycle-style teleoperational interface for children: a comparative experiment with a video game controller. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, New York, pp 334–338Tanaka F, Takahashi T (2012) A tricycle-style teleoperational interface that remotely controls a robot for classroom children. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 255–256Tjaden L, Tong A, Henning P et al (2012) Children’s experiences of dialysis: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Arch Dis Child 97:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-300639Vatavu R-D (2012) User-defined gestures for free-hand TV control. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on interactive TV and video—EuroiTV’12. ACM Press, New York, pp 45–48Vatavu R-D (2017) Smart-Pockets: body-deictic gestures for fast access to personal data during ambient interactions. Int J Hum Comput Stud 103:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.01.005Vatavu R-D, Wobbrock JO (2015) Formalizing agreement analysis for elicitation studies: new measures, significance test, and toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’15. ACM Press, New York, pp 1325–1334Vatavu R-D, Wobbrock JO (2016) Between-subjects elicitation studies: formalization and tool support. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’16. ACM Press, New York, pp 3390–3402Voyer D, Voyer S, Bryden MP (1995) Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychol Bull 117:250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250Wainer J, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F, Dautenhahn K (2014) Using the humanoid robot KASPAR to autonomously play triadic games and facilitate collaborative play among children with autism. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 6:183–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2014.2303116Wang Y, Zhang L (2015) A track-based gesture recognition algorithm for Kinect. Appl Mech Mater 738–7399:334–338. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.738-739.334