Next Article in Journal
Enhancing the Performance of Telugu Named Entity Recognition Using Gazetteer Features
Next Article in Special Issue
How Much Information Does a Robot Need? Exploring the Benefits of Increased Sensory Range in a Simulated Crowd Navigation Task
Previous Article in Journal
An Attention-Based Model Using Character Composition of Entities in Chinese Relation Extraction
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Systematic Review of Robotics Research in Support of In-Home Care for Older Adults
Open AccessArticle

Requirements for Robotic Interpretation of Social Signals “in the Wild”: Insights from Diagnostic Criteria of Autism Spectrum Disorder

Centre for Robotics and Neural Systems, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca 400000, Romania
Lincoln Centre for Autonomous Systems, School of Computer Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 XZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Interaction Lab, School of Informatics, University of Skövde, 541 28 Skövde, Sweden
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Information 2020, 11(2), 81;
Received: 12 December 2019 / Revised: 16 January 2020 / Accepted: 30 January 2020 / Published: 1 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Social Robots)
The last few decades have seen widespread advances in technological means to characterise observable aspects of human behaviour such as gaze or posture. Among others, these developments have also led to significant advances in social robotics. At the same time, however, social robots are still largely evaluated in idealised or laboratory conditions, and it remains unclear whether the technological progress is sufficient to let such robots move “into the wild”. In this paper, we characterise the problems that a social robot in the real world may face, and review the technological state of the art in terms of addressing these. We do this by considering what it would entail to automate the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Just as for social robotics, ASD diagnosis fundamentally requires the ability to characterise human behaviour from observable aspects. However, therapists provide clear criteria regarding what to look for. As such, ASD diagnosis is a situation that is both relevant to real-world social robotics and comes with clear metrics. Overall, we demonstrate that even with relatively clear therapist-provided criteria and current technological progress, the need to interpret covert behaviour cannot yet be fully addressed. Our discussions have clear implications for ASD diagnosis, but also for social robotics more generally. For ASD diagnosis, we provide a classification of criteria based on whether or not they depend on covert information and highlight present-day possibilities for supporting therapists in diagnosis through technological means. For social robotics, we highlight the fundamental role of covert behaviour, show that the current state-of-the-art is unable to characterise this, and emphasise that future research should tackle this explicitly in realistic settings.
Keywords: autism spectrum disorder; diagnosis; technology; behaviour autism spectrum disorder; diagnosis; technology; behaviour
MDPI and ACS Style

Bartlett, M.E.; Costescu, C.; Baxter, P.; Thill, S. Requirements for Robotic Interpretation of Social Signals “in the Wild”: Insights from Diagnostic Criteria of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Information 2020, 11, 81.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop