Exploring the utility of robots as distractors during a delay-of-gratification task in preschool children

Abstract

The development of executive function (EF) in children, particularly with respect to self-regulation skills, has been linked to long-term benefits in terms of social and health outcomes. One such skill is the ability to deal with frustrations when waiting for a delayed, preferred reward. Although robots have increasingly been utilized in educational situations that involve teaching psychosocial skills to children, including various aspects related to self-control, the utility of robots in increasing the likelihood of self-imposed delay of gratification remains to be explored. Using a single-case experimental design, the present study exposed 24 preschoolers to three experimental conditions where a choice was provided between an immediately available reward and a delayed but larger reward. The likelihood of waiting increased over sessions when children were simply asked to wait, but waiting times did not increase further during a condition where teachers offered activities as a distraction. However, when children were exposed to robots and given the opportunity to interact with them, waiting times for the majority of children increased with medium to large effect sizes. Given the positive implications of strong executive function, how it might be increased in children in which it is lacking, limited, or in the process of developing, is of considerable import. This study highlights the effectiveness of robots as a distractor during waiting times and outlines a potential new application of robots in educational contexts.

Managing social-educational robotics for students with autism spectrum disorder through business model canvas and customer discovery

“…The development of ASD-specific social robots can be traced back to the seminal study by Emanuel and Weir (1976) , in which a computer-controlled electrotechnical device, a turtle-like robot (LOGO) moving on wheels around the floor, was used as a remedial tool for a student diagnosed with ASD. It was not until the late 1990s that numerous laboratories started investigating this topic (see Begum et al, 2016 ; Ismail et al, 2019 ; Leoste et al, 2022 ; Bertacchini et al, 2022 ; Soleiman et al, 2023 ; Bharatharaj et al, 2023 for reviews). In the current research, a ‘student diagnosed with ASD’ is referred to as an ‘ASD student.’…”

“…Students with ASD show minimal activation of the brain’s reward system in response to social reinforcement, unlike their typically developing (TD) peers, for whom social interactions are inherently rewarding ( Chevallier et al, 2012 ). To simulate social interaction between humans, humanoid (anthropomorphic) robots should integrate the social motivation mechanisms of the human brain for an effective HRI ( Arora and Arora, 2020 ; Arora et al, 2022 ; Bertacchini et al, 2022 ; Leoste et al, 2022 ; Newman et al, 2022 ; Salhi et al, 2022 ; Bharatharaj et al, 2023 ; Soleiman et al, 2023 ). Given the student’s ASD characteristics, it appears worthwhile to investigate whether a social robot, with its motivational appeal, behavioral repetition, simplified appearance, and lack of social judgment, might appeal more to people with ASD than humans ( Bertacchini et al, 2022 ; Leoste et al, 2022 ; Salhi et al, 2022 ; Bharatharaj et al, 2023 ; Soleiman et al, 2023 ).…”

“…The increased popularity/interest in robotics education has raised questions about its performance and efficiency for students ( Chandra, 2014 ; Somyürek, 2015 ; Berry et al, 2016 ; Nemiro et al, 2017 ; Bertacchini et al, 2022 ; Leoste et al, 2022 ; Salhi et al, 2022 ; Bharatharaj et al, 2023 ; Soleiman et al, 2023 ). ASD students exhibit favorable outcomes when engaging with social robots during HRI field experiments, attributed to the social motivation theory of autism, highlighting the role of SMT in understanding the interactions between ASD individuals and robots ( Dubois-Sage et al, 2024 ).…”

“…Some HRI benefits to these students include high levels of interest, elevated attention, high engagement, calm/active behaviors (with less repetitive behavior portrayals), and emotional response modification while being comfortably engaged in an activity/instruction provided by social robots ( Dautenhahn and Billard, 2002 ; Kozima, Nakagawa and Yasuda, 2005 ; Lee et al, 2012 ; Scassellati, Admoni and Matarić, 2012 ; Costescu et al, 2014 ). These robotic interventions and interactions result in positive learning environments for students diagnosed with ASD and other learning disorders and disabilities ( Zhang et al, 2019 ; Arora et al, 2022 ; Bertacchini et al, 2022 ; Leoste et al, 2022 ; Salhi et al, 2022 ; Bharatharaj et al, 2023 ; Soleiman et al, 2023 ).…”

“…Social-educational robotics and technological advancements in human-robot interaction (HRI) are revolutionizing education, learning, and cognitive rehabilitation capabilities ( Leoste et al, 2022 ; Bharatharaj et al, 2023 ; Soleiman et al, 2023 ). HRI research is a rapidly expanding field of artificial intelligence (AI) encompassing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), robotics, human-computer interaction, psychology, and social sciences.…”