Theory of Robot Mind: False Belief Attribution to Social Robots in Children With and Without Autism

Abstract

This study aims to probe how children with and without autism spectrum disorders (ASD) attribute false belief to a social robot and predict its action accordingly. Twenty 5- to 7-year-old children with ASD and 20 age- and IQ-matched typically developing (TD) children participated in two false belief tasks adapted for robot settings (change-of-location task and the unexpected-contents task). The results showed that most TD children are capable of attributing false belief to the social robot, that is, they could infer higher level mental states in robots, which extends our understanding in TD children’s perception and cognition on social robots. Conversely, children with ASD still show difficulty in interpreting robots’ mental states compared to their TD peers, which would greatly interfere with their interactions and communications with social robots and might impact on efficiency of robot-based intervention and education approaches. This group difference in attributing false belief to social robots could not be explained by the different perception and categorization of the robot. Our study implies that although children with ASD appear to be highly attracted by social robots, they still have difficulty in understanding mental states when socially interacting with robots, which should be taken into consideration when designing the robot-based intervention approach targeting to improve social behaviors of ASD.

Robots as Assistive Technology Tools to Enhance Cognitive Abilities and Foster Valuable Learning Experiences among Young Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Results from recent studies suggest that robotics have the potential to become remarkable AT tools in many ways, including for teaching and learning among children with ASD [14], [15], [17], [21], [22], [25], [35], [36], [46], [47]. Accordingly, this study investigates and presents evidence that supports this notion.…”

“…Based on this research, there is evidence supporting the successful application of robots as AT in many areas that include developments in social sciences [23]- [25], communications [25], [26] and education [14], [17], [22], [27]. However, the empirical evidence on how robots as AT tools accommodate the learning of children with ASD is still scarce [12], [16], [20], [21], [28]. Hence, it is crucial for research studies to concentrate on presenting evidence that AT is efficacious in special education and inclusive schools [10], [11], [29], [30].…”

“…Hence, it is crucial for research studies to concentrate on presenting evidence that AT is efficacious in special education and inclusive schools [10], [11], [29], [30]. For example, there should be evidence showcasing ways AT facilitates tough or challenging learning tasks that previously seemed impossible for children with ASD to comprehend [7], [15], [21]. Accordingly, we intend to contribute to increasing awareness of and insight into how robots as AT tools can assist learning and bring valuable experience to children with ASD in classrooms.…”

“…This includes the results of interactions with robots, e.g., touching, approaching, watching from a distance, etc. [21], [42], [43], and whether the use of robotics has improved the cognitive abilities of children with ASD. Moreover, research should communicate the valuable experiences children with ASD garner through robotic interventions [24], [44], [45].…”

“…Moreover, research should communicate the valuable experiences children with ASD garner through robotic interventions [24], [44], [45]. This includes the experience of being able to develop complex aspects of social interaction, such as eye contact, turn-taking, and purposive and imitative actions when learning through the use of AT, especially robots [21].…”