This extended abstract describes the initial pilot work when evaluating the use of the UH Humanoid Robot KASPAR in a specialist nursery for children with social and communication disorders. Staff and volunteers at the nursery were trained in the use of KASPAR and are currently using KASPAR in their day to day activities in the nursery. This paper focuses on the design and results from the initial interviews with the participants. Results high-light the challenges of transferring experimental technologies like KASPAR from a research setting into everyday practice

Dautenhahn, K.

Lehmann, Hagen

Robins, Ben

Syrdal, D.S.

English

Syrdal, D. S.

Dautenhahn, K

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università di Macerata

KASPAR in the Wild – Initial Findings from a Pilot Study

University of Hertfordshire Research Archive

KASPAR in the Wild –Initial Findings from a Pilot StudyDag Sverre Syrdal and Hagen Lehmann and Ben Robins and Kerstin Dautenhahn 1Abstract. This extended abstract describes the initial pilot workwhen evaluating the use of the UH Humanoid Robot KASPAR in aspecialist nursery for children with social and communication disor-ders. Staff and volunteers at the nursery were trained in the use ofKASPAR and are currently using KASPAR in their day to day ac-tivities in the nursery. This paper focuses on the design and resultsfrom the initial interviews with the participants. Results high-lightthe challenges of transferring experimental technologies like KAS-PAR from a research setting into everyday practice.1 IntroductionThe work described in this extended abstract is part of our ongoinginvestigation into the use of robots for children with Autism Spec-trum Conditions (ASC). It is estimated that around 1-2% of primaryschool children in the UK might be diagnosed with one of these con-ditions [2], which is characterised by the presence of social and com-munication difficulties, as well as strong and narrow interests and/orrepetitive and stereo-typed behaviour (ICD-10 [9]). As [2] notes,the number of diagnoses has increased dramatically over the last 30years, and this has prompted considerable interest in these conditionsand how to address them. In particular, the use of robots for therapeu-tic interactions to address ASC issues has been a rich field of inquiryfor some time, with many research platforms being developed andtested [13, 5, 14] in order to examine the efficacy of using robots associally assistive aides [7], facilitating interactions between childrenwith ASCs and teachers, therapists, parents, and other carers.2 KASPARThe University of Hertfordshire’s humanoid robot KASPAR, hasshown great promise as a tool for interactions with children withASCs [12], but like the majority of robots being used for this purposeas of today, KASPAR is primarily a research prototype. This meansthat transferring the successes from KASPAR’s use in research toeveryday practice, especially with practicioners who are not roboti-cists, may not be as simple as one might think. There are a numberof technologies that are being used in interventions for ASC [8], andwhile KASPAR might be a potentially highly useful tool in terms ofclinical success, its adoption by carers will likely depend on otherfactors that are independent of therapeutic outcomes [10].The initial development of KASPAR by the UH Adaptive Sys-tems Research Group (ASRG) is described in detail in Dautenhahnet al.[6]. One of the key features of KASPAR highlighted here is that1 Adaptive Systems Researchs group, School of Computer Science, Uni-versity of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom, email: {d.s.syrdal;h.lehmann; b.robins; k.dautenhahn } @herts.ac.ukFigure 1. KASPARit is an ’open platform that would allow the development of a varietyof different controllers and algorithms’. This has made it suitable forseveral strands of research at UH, both in general Human-Robot In-teraction Research as well as research focused on children with ASC.However, many of the features of the robot were originally designedas tools for where the intended user has been a researcher familiarwith such experimental prototypes.This has not an been issue for its use within the UH team whenusing the platform for work with children with ASCs. Researchers inthe Adaptive Systems Research Group will often have the capabil-ity to customise the software and hardware components for specificstudies. They will also have direct access to other members of staffthat have accumulated years of experience in using KASPAR, andcan provide support both in terms of explaining general principles inthe use of KASPAR as well as work-arounds for specific problems.Professionals and other carers for children with ASC, on the otherhand, will not have this level of expertise and training. In order toensure that KASPAR can make a positive contribution to the livesof ASC children and their families, we need to examine how wecan make the use of this robot accessible to future users from non-technical backgrounds.As part of this effort, the Adaptive Systems Research Group atthe University of Hertfordshire is currently running a pilot projectinto the use of KASPAR by child-care professionals in a specialistnursery for children with social and communication disorders. Thissmall-scale exploratory study is intended as a test-bed for exploringthe issues of deploying KASPAR in the wild and is a precursor toa more extensive large-scale study with the platform. Through ourwork with the Staff and Volunteers at this nursery, we hope to gainfurther insights into how we can transform KASPAR from an exper-imental research prototype to a tool that will benefit, teachers, thera-pists, carers, parents and children from a wide range of backgrounds,by examining their interactions with KASPAR.3 Setting and ParticipantsThe setting for this study is an Early Years Centre specialising inchildren with complex social and communication disorders ages 2-6.It is a relatively small centre, with a maximum number of childrenper session of 8. The nursery is a short journey away from UH, whichallowed easy access for members of the UH team to visit for inter-views as well as for technical support. This nursery had previouslyallowed UH staff access for interaction studies with KASPAR [11],which meant that the staff at the nursery had seen KASPAR in actionbefore, but they had not used it themselves.Figure 2. Acceptance of KASPAR4 General ApproachFor the purposes of this pilot study, it was important to us to un-derstand how participants used KASPAR and the impact that KAS-PAR had on their interactions with the children in the nursery. Whileour approach was inspired by more formalised Technology Accep-tance Models, for the purposes of this small–scale exploratory pi-lot study, we adopted a more open-ended approach, and decided tocollect data along 4 general dimensions. The proposed relationshipsbetween these dimensions can be found in Figure 2Therapeutic Outcomes For the purposes of our motivation to re-search the use of robots for ASC interventions, this is the most im-portant factor , but as we noted above, this is not necessarily the onlypredictor of future use [10] of such a technology. The nursery, likemost child-care institutions in the UK, conducts continuous assess-ment of the children along a range of developmental markers usingthe UK Early Years Foundation Stage framework (EYFS) [15].Ease of Use — Usability Ease of Use is a central factor in thisstudy. How easy it is for a carer or professional to use KASPAR inde-pendently in meaningful interactions is central to all other outcomes,to the extent that a failure of the technology along this dimensionrenders all other considerations moot. Also, difficulties in using asystem will likely detract from other aspects of the overall experi-ence of using it[16], notably Interaction Quality and Acceptance. Inthis initial pilot study, we examine usability using a two-pronged ap-proach. The first is a modified System Usability Scale (SUS)[4], sup-ported by a small number open-ended questionnaire items. The SUSis a widely used tool for measuring usability, noted for its robustnessacross a wide range of applications. It is also short, and easy to fillin quickly [1]. This makes it ideal for use in a real-life setting. Inthis pilot-study, there were too few responses to make any meaning-ful quantitative analysis of the results from these, and the inclusionof this questionnaire was primarily to flag any particular participantsthat found the robot difficult to use, and as a jump-off point in a sub-sequent interviews.Interaction Quality The perceived quality of the carer-child inter-actions that are mediated by KASPAR is also of prime importance. IfKASPAR’s mediation is experienced as detracting from the interac-tions between carer and child, this is likely to impact acceptance andcontinued use of the system. While for the carer , interaction qualityis likely to be linked to perceived Therapeutic Outcomes, it still needsto be addressed on its own as an intrinsically motivating factor forthe use of the system. While there are standardised scales for mea-suring interaction quality (As in [3], for example), semi-structuredinterviews addressed this aspect as well in this pilot study.Acceptance Acceptance of KASPAR, is as shown, in Figure 2,likely dependent on Ease of Use. It is however, likely to co-varywith Interaction Quality and perceived Therapeutic Outcomes. In thispilot-study we aim to assess it in terms of open-ended questions, aswell as in the semi-structured interviews where it will be related to toUsability, Interaction Quality and Perceived Therapeutic Outcomes.5 InterviewsAs of the writing of this extended abstract, two sets of interviewshave been conducted, an initial pre-deployment interview, which wasconducted before a training session with UH staff and KASPAR, andone which was conducted 6 weeks into the study. We are currentlypreparing a third set of interviews.5.1 First InterviewThe first interviews were conducted in order to gain a more thoroughunderstanding of the participants, their roles in the nursery, their levelof technical confidence and expertise and their hopes and motivationfor using KASPAR as well as their fears and concerns regarding theiradoption of the robot in their everyday working environment. Theparticipants were interviewed individually in a separate room of thenursery.Below are the main themes from the initial interviews:Motivation – Hopes While the possible benefit of KASPAR forthe children in the nursery was referenced by all the participants,they would also reference other motivations. Some participants sawworking with the robot as intrinsically motivating and interesting andlooked forward to engaging with it as a technology. Others referencedan interest in the research, excitement at taking part in a novel studyas well as the possibility of furthering the research on using KASPARfor ASC interventions.Concerns – Fears The main fear referenced by the participantwas that of technical breakdowns. Some of the participants whendiscussing this with the interviewer, go into detail as to how suchbreakdowns might impact interactions, and how they would have todeal with it. Other participants were concerned with wider logisticalissues in the running of the nursery, in terms of space, timetablingand creating meaningful links between KASPAR and the rest of theteaching in the school. The complexity of the system in particular interms of setting it up for a session was a cause for concern.Conclusions The findings from the initial interviews gave the im-pression of a group of participants that were highly motivated to usethe system in the manner intended by the UH Research team. Theparticipants looked forward to using the system, both in itself and asa tool for their work with the children in the nursery. The majorityof concerns were related to things that would prevent them from us-ing KASPAR in their everyday practice, either technical problems,or issues in the logistics of setting up sessions with the robot, notconcerns regarding the robot itself.5.2 The Second InterviewThe second interview set was conducted in the third week of KAS-PAR having been deployed. The participants had had a chance touse KASPAR in this period on an almost daily basis, with the excep-tion of incidents of technical breakdown. The participants were inter-viewed in private as in the initial interview set. The semi-structuredinterviews were intended to gain as rich a data set as possible.Usability Overall, the participants stated that they found KAS-PAR easy to use, but this was qualified with several suggestions as tohow the usability of the robot could be increased for them. Most ofthese suggestions centered around the control interface, which theyfelt could be quite cumbersome, and several feasible changes to theinterface was suggested. The main threat to the usability of the robot,were technical breakdowns, however. While most technical problemswith KASPAR were easily rectified in a short amount of time, theydid lead to a breakdown in the interaction with the child. However,participants had developed strategies to deal with such breakdowns,and provided concrete examples to the researchers illustrating howthey had successfully maintained interactions throughout such inci-dents. In addition, participants felt that some of the breakdowns couldbe avoided, and suggested that a troubleshooting manual be compiledfor the most common problems.Motivation – Rewards When asked about positive aspects ofKASPAR, the majority of statements related to the quality of theinteractions that they had with the children. All of the participantswould describe specific episodes in which they where surprised byhow well children responded to the robot and the participant in the in-teraction. One participant referred to these as ’WOW-moments’. Mostof the intrinsic motivation for using KASPAR seemed to derive fromthese in–situ episodes rather than the more high-level reasoning morecommonly given in the initial interviews.6 ConclusionsEven at this early stage of our deployment of KASPAR the partici-pants were able to provide the UH team with highly useful insights.In particular, their suggestions for not only improving the interfacebut for how to increase the customisability of it, have already beenadopted by the UH team, and their strategies for maintaining interac-tions throughout breakdown incidents will be useful when deployingKASPAR with a wider group of users.Another interesting facet is the change in participants’ referencesto their motivations to use KASPAR, from the potential therapeuticbenefit to the child in the first interviews to the immediacy of theirexperiences when interacting with children using KASPAR in thesubsequent interviews. This change in motivation is encouraging, asit suggests that despite the issues of usability, the participants en-joyed using the robot, and that the robot-mediated interactions wererewarding in and of themselves.7 Future WorkWhile the initial work on the use of KASPAR in this specialist nurs-ery has been promising, the pilot study is still is ongoing, and theresults from this will assist in further, more large-scale studies. Wehope to gain new insights into how we can continue the developmentof KASPAR into a tool that could provide real benefits for childrenwith ASC and their carers.REFERENCES[1] Aaron Bangor, Philip T Kortum, and James T Miller, ‘An empiri-cal evaluation of the system usability scale’, Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594, (2008).[2] Simon Baron-Cohen, Fiona J Scott, Carrie Allison, Joanna Williams,Patrick Bolton, Fiona E Matthews, and Carol Brayne, ‘Prevalence ofautism-spectrum conditions: Uk school-based population study’, TheBritish Journal of Psychiatry, 194(6), 500–509, (2009).[3] Diane S Berry and Jane Sherman Hansen, ‘Personality, nonverbal be-havior, and interaction quality in female dyads’, Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 26(3), 278–292, (2000).[4] John Brooke, ‘Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale’, Usability evalua-tion in industry, 189, 194, (1996).[5] John-John Cabibihan, Hifza Javed, Marcelo Ang Jr, and Shari-fah Mariam Aljunied, ‘Why robots? a survey on the roles and benefitsof social robots in the therapy of children with autism’, InternationalJournal of Social Robotics, 5(4), 593–618, (2013).[6] Kerstin Dautenhahn, Chrystopher L Nehaniv, Michael L Walters, BenRobins, Hatice Kose-Bagci, N Assif Mirza, and Mike Blow, ‘Kaspar–a minimally expressive humanoid robot for human–robot interactionresearch’, Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 6(3-4), 369–397, (2009).[7] David Feil-Seifer and Maja J Mataric, ‘Defining socially assistiverobotics’, in Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005. 9th Interna-tional Conference on, pp. 465–468. IEEE, (2005).[8] Tina R Goldsmith and Linda A LeBlanc, ‘Use of technology in inter-ventions for children with autism’, Journal of Early and Intensive Be-havior Intervention, 1(2), 166–178, (2004).[9] World Health Organization, The ICD-10 classification of mental andbehavioural disorders: diagnostic criteria for research, World HealthOrganization, 1993.[10] Betsy Phillips and Hongxin Zhao, ‘Predictors of assistive technologyabandonment’, Assistive Technology, 5(1), 36–45, (1993).[11] B. Robins, F. Amirabdollahian, Ze Ji, and K. Dautenhahn, ‘Tactile in-teraction with a humanoid robot for children with autism: A case studyanalysis involving user requirements and results of an initial implemen-tation’, in RO-MAN, 2010 IEEE, pp. 704–711, (2010).[12] Ben Robins, Kerstin Dautenhahn, and Paul Dickerson, ‘From isolationto communication: a case study evaluation of robot assisted play forchildren with autism with a minimally expressive humanoid robot’, inAdvances in Computer-Human Interactions, 2009. ACHI’09. SecondInternational Conferences on, pp. 205–211. IEEE, (2009).[13] Ben Robins, Kerstin Dautenhahn, R Te Boekhorst, and Aude Billard,‘Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism:Can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills?’,Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(2), 105–120, (2005).[14] Brian Scassellati, Henny Admoni, and Maja Mataric, ‘Robots for use inautism research’, Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 14, 275–294, (2012).[15] Standards and Testings Agency, Early Years Foundation Stage ProfileHandbook, 2014.[16] Manfred Thu¨ring and Sascha Mahlke, ‘Usability, aesthetics and emo-tions in human–technology interaction’, International Journal of Psy-chology, 42(4), 253–264, (2007).

An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale’,

Defining socially assistive robotics’, in Rehabilitation Robotics,

Early Years Foundation Stage Profile Handbook,

From isolation to communication: a case study evaluation of robot assisted play for children with autism with a minimally expressive humanoid robot’,

Henny Admoni, and Maja Mataric, ‘Robots for use in autism research’,

Kaspar– a minimally expressive humanoid robot for human–robot interaction research’,

Marcelo Ang Jr, and Sharifah Mariam Aljunied, ‘Why robots? a survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism’,

Organization, The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: diagnostic criteria for research, World Health Organization,

Personality, nonverbal behavior, and interaction quality in female dyads’,

Predictors of assistive technology abandonment’,

Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: Uk school-based population study’,

Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: Can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills?’,

Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale’, Usability evaluation in industry, 189,

Tactile interaction with a humanoid robot for children with autism: A case study analysis involving user requirements and results of an initial implementation’, in RO-MAN,

Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction’,

Use of technology in interventions for children with autism’,

KASPAR in the wild - Initial findings from a pilot study

KASPAR in the wild - Initial findings from a pilot study

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università di Macerata

University of Hertfordshire Research Archive