Volume 12 - Articles-1401
MEJDS (2022) 12: 67 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Emad V, Estaki M, Koochak Entezar R. Comparing the Effectiveness of Sensory Integration Methods With and Without Robot in the Communication of 7 to 9 Years Old Boys With Autism Spectrum Disorder. MEJDS 2022; 12 :67-67
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2433-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2433-en.html
1- Department of Psychology, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University
Abstract: (997 Views)
Background & Objectives: Today, autism spectrum disorder is defined as a group of developmental neurological syndromes, and impairment in social interactions is a major barrier to participation in social environments for people with autism. Given the importance of this issue, it seems necessary to use approaches that help children with autism to solve this problem. Sensory integration is a therapeutic method often used to treat sensory processing in children with an autism spectrum disorder. Sensory integration exercises are a neurological process that requires the organization of sensations received from the main and key receptors for use in daily activities. Currently, the use of robots in therapy is progressing as a suitable method to improve people's quality of life. One of the prominent fields of treatment with the help of technology is the use of robots to help communicate directly with people, which is called social robotics. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of sensory integration methods with and without robots on communication in autistic children.
Methods: The research method was quasi-experimental with pretest, posttest, and two-months follow-up with a control group. The study’s statistical population comprised 7-9 years old boys with moderate autism spectrum studying in Tehran schools, Iran in the academic year 2018-2019. The research participants were diagnosed with the average probability of the autism spectrum by the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale: The Second Edition (GARS-2) (2006) and they were diagnosed with autism by at least two psychiatrists. Sampling was done by convenience sampling and 45 eligible children with autism spectrum were randomly assigned to two experimental and one control groups. In all three stages of pretest, posttest, and follow-up, the communication section of the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale: Second Edition (GARS-2) (2006) was used. After the test was performed, the first group was treated with only sensory integration method for 45 minutes, and the second group not only treated with the sensory integration method for 45 minutes but also with robot therapy for 45 minutes. The sensory integration method was performed according to Ayers's (1972) protocols. Robot therapy was performed with a sensory robot based on the nature of the robot and the robot treatment protocols from Scassellati et al. (2012) and Kumazaki et al. (2018). The robot used in this study was a sensory robot in the shape of a cat and the name of this robot was Toby Orange Cat. At the end of the sessions, the social interaction part of the GARS-2 (2006) was performed again and after two months, the same test was performed to follow up the treatment. The results were analyzed with SPSS version 22 software at a significance level of 0.05. Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (variance analysis with repeated measurements, Bonferroni's post hoc test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test).
Results: Based on the results, there was a significant difference between the sensory integration group with and without robot in the communication of children with the autism spectrum (p=0.001). Also, in the sensory integration groups with and without the robot, there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores (p<0.001) and between the pretest and follow-up scores (p<0.001) in terms of the communication variable score. However, there was no significant difference between the posttest and follow-up scores in the two groups of sensory integration with and without the robot, indicating that the intervention of sensory integration with and without the robot continued in the follow-up phase.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, the combination of two therapies of integration-sensory therapy and robot therapy can improve the communication disorders of children with autism spectrum disorder, more than integration-sensory therapy alone.
Methods: The research method was quasi-experimental with pretest, posttest, and two-months follow-up with a control group. The study’s statistical population comprised 7-9 years old boys with moderate autism spectrum studying in Tehran schools, Iran in the academic year 2018-2019. The research participants were diagnosed with the average probability of the autism spectrum by the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale: The Second Edition (GARS-2) (2006) and they were diagnosed with autism by at least two psychiatrists. Sampling was done by convenience sampling and 45 eligible children with autism spectrum were randomly assigned to two experimental and one control groups. In all three stages of pretest, posttest, and follow-up, the communication section of the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale: Second Edition (GARS-2) (2006) was used. After the test was performed, the first group was treated with only sensory integration method for 45 minutes, and the second group not only treated with the sensory integration method for 45 minutes but also with robot therapy for 45 minutes. The sensory integration method was performed according to Ayers's (1972) protocols. Robot therapy was performed with a sensory robot based on the nature of the robot and the robot treatment protocols from Scassellati et al. (2012) and Kumazaki et al. (2018). The robot used in this study was a sensory robot in the shape of a cat and the name of this robot was Toby Orange Cat. At the end of the sessions, the social interaction part of the GARS-2 (2006) was performed again and after two months, the same test was performed to follow up the treatment. The results were analyzed with SPSS version 22 software at a significance level of 0.05. Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (variance analysis with repeated measurements, Bonferroni's post hoc test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test).
Results: Based on the results, there was a significant difference between the sensory integration group with and without robot in the communication of children with the autism spectrum (p=0.001). Also, in the sensory integration groups with and without the robot, there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores (p<0.001) and between the pretest and follow-up scores (p<0.001) in terms of the communication variable score. However, there was no significant difference between the posttest and follow-up scores in the two groups of sensory integration with and without the robot, indicating that the intervention of sensory integration with and without the robot continued in the follow-up phase.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, the combination of two therapies of integration-sensory therapy and robot therapy can improve the communication disorders of children with autism spectrum disorder, more than integration-sensory therapy alone.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Scassellati B, Henny Admoni, Matarić M. Robots for use in autism research. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;14(1):275–94. [DOI]
2. Sadock BJ, Sadock VA. Kaplan and Sadock's synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral sciences/clinical psychiatry. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
3. Mehraeen F, Danesh E, Khalatbari J, Mofidi Tehrani HF. Native children’s stories on the socio-communicative skills of children with high performing autism spectrum disorders. Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies. 2020;10:107. [Persian] [Article]
4. Akbari Bayatiani Z. Effectiveness of sensory-motor integration training in decreasing stereotypic behaviors among children with autism spectrum disorder. J Except Educ. 2019;6(155):53–60. [Persian] [Article]
5. Derakhshan Rad SA, Zenhari N, Rahmani Pour B. The efficacy of sensory integration approach in treating constructional apraxia of children with autism over four years old: a pilot study. Research in Rehabilitation Sciences. 2014;10(1):24–34. [Persian]
6. Mirzakhani N, Dehghan F, Shahbazi M, Shahbazi F. Prevalence of sensory processing disorder among children between ages of 5 to 11 years old in Tehran. International Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences. 2017;4(1):15–20. [Persian] [DOI]
7. Case-Smith J, O'Brien JC. Occupational therapy for children and adolescents. 7th edition. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.
8. Khamooshi M, Mirmahdi S. The effectiveness of sensory integration procedure on reduction of stereotypical behaviors in autistic children. Developmental Psychology, Iranian Psychologists. 2015;11(44):417–23. [Persian] [Article]
9. Marinoiu E, Zanfir M, Olaru V, Sminchisescu C. 3D human sensing, action and emotion recognition in robot assisted therapy of children with autism. In: 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition [Internet]. Salt Lake City, UT: IEEE; 2018. p. 2158–67. [DOI]
10. Conti D, Trubia G, Buono S, Di Nuovo S, Di Nuovo A. Evaluation of a robot-assisted therapy for children with autism and intellectual disability. In: Giuliani M, Assaf T, Giannaccini ME; editors. Towards autonomous robotic systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. [DOI]
11. Curley D, Barco A, Pico S, Gallego P, Zervas D, Angulo C, et al. CASPER Project: Social pet robots facilitating tasks in therapies with children with ASD. In: the International Conference on Social Robots in Therapy and Education [Internet]. Barcelona; 2017.
12. Stanton CM, Kahn Jr. PH, Severson RL, Ruckert JH, Gill BT. Robotic animals might aid in the social development of children with autism. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Human Robot Interaction - HRI ’08 [Internet]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ACM Press; 2008. [DOI]
13. Kumazaki H, Yoshikawa Y, Yoshimura Y, Ikeda T, Hasegawa C, Saito DN, et al. The impact of robotic intervention on joint attention in children with autism spectrum disorders. Mol Autism. 2018;9(1):46. [DOI]
14. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Billard A. Effects of repeated exposure to a humanoid robot on children with autism. In: Keates S, Clarkson J, Langdon P, Robinson P; editors. Designing a more inclusive world. London: Springer London; 2004. [DOI]
15. Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yasuda Y. Interactive robots for communication-care: a case-study in autism therapy. In: Roman 2005 IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. [Internet]. Nashville, TN, USA: IEEE; 2005. [DOI]
16. Ricks DJ, Colton MB. Trends and considerations in robot-assisted autism therapy. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation [Internet]. Anchorage, AK: IEEE; 2010. [DOI]
17. Jeon M, Rayan IA. The effect of physical embodiment of an animal robot on affective prosody recognition. In: Jacko JA; editor. Human-computer interaction interaction techniques and environments. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011. [DOI]
18. Panagiotidi M, Wilson S, Prescott T. Exploring the potential of the animal-like robot miro as a therapeutic tool for children diagnosed with autism. In: Martinez-Hernandez U, Vouloutsi V, Mura A, Mangan M, Asada M, Prescott TJ, et al; editors. Biomimetic and biohybrid systems. Cham: Springer; 2019. [DOI]
19. Heidari R, Alipour S, Meghdari A, Shehni Yailagh M. The impact of social robots intervention on improving the executive functions in children with autism disorder. Urmia Medical Journal. 2019;30(9):744–52. [Persian] [Article]
20. Sadeghian A, Bigdeli I, Alizadeh Zarei M. Combination of sensory integration training and behavior modification to improvement of stereotyped behavior in children with autism spectrum disorder. Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies. 2017;7:98. [Persian] [Article]
21. Taheri A, Meghdari A, Alemi M, Pouretemad H. Clinical interventions of social humanoid robots in the treatment of a set of high- and low-functioning autistic Iranian twins. Scientia Iranica. 2018;25(3):1197–214. [Persian] [DOI]
22. Khalatbari J, Keikhafarzane M. Mabahese asasi dar ravesh tahghigh [Basic topics in research methods]. Tehran: Saad Pub; 2010. [Persian]
23. Gilliam JE. Gilliam Autism Rating Scale: second edition (GARS-2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2006.
24. Montgomery JM, Newton B, Smith C. Test review: Gilliam, J. (2006). GARS-2: Gilliam Autism Rating Scale—second edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2008;26(4):395–401. [DOI]
25. Ahmadi SJ, Safari T, Hemmatiyan M, Khalili Z. Effectiveness of applied behavioral analysis approach on symptoms of autism. Journal of Research in Behavioural Sciences. 2012;10(4):292–300. [Persian]
26. Ahmadi SJ, Safari T, Hemmatian M, Khalili Z. The psychometric properties of Gilliam Autism Rating Scale(GARS). Research in Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences. 2011;1(1):87–104. [Persian] [Article]
27. Na NH, Jang MY, Lee J, Kang J, Yeo SS, Kim KM. The effects of group play activities based on ayres sensory integration on sensory processing ability, social skill ability and self-esteem of low-income children with ADHD. Journal of Korean Society of Sensory Integration Therapists. 2018;16(2):1–14. [DOI]
28. Kashefimehr B, Kayihan H, Huri M. The effect of sensory integration therapy on occupational performance in children with autism. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health. 2018;38(2):75–83. [DOI]
29. Mohammadi T, Salemi Khamene A, Rahnejat A, Donyavi V. The comparison efficiency of pivotal response treatment (PRT) and sensory integration (SI) to reduce unusual quality of social interactions, unusual quality of communication and self-stimulatory behaviors in autistic children. Nurse and Physician within War. 2019;6(21):32–40. [Persian] [Article]
30. Bharatharaj J, Huang L, Al-Jumaily AM, Krageloh C, Elara MR. Effects of adapted model-rival method and parrot-inspired robot in improving learning and social interaction among children with autism. In: 2016 International Conference on Robotics and Automation for Humanitarian Applications (RAHA) [Internet]. Amritapuri, Kollam, Kerala, India: IEEE; 2016. [DOI]
31. Daqiqi Khodashahri A, Poushaneh K, Jafari AH. Impact of humanoid robot on improvement eye-contact of children with autism. Research in Behavioural Sciences. 2012;10(3):168–78. [Persian]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
