Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 25:1 (2024) ► pp.36–69

Towards accessible robot-assisted physical play for children with physical disabilities

MyJay, from user-centred design to an initial feasibility study

| University of Waterloo,
| University of Waterloo,
| University of Waterloo,
| University of Waterloo,
MyJay is an open-source robot designed to facilitate play between children with and without physical disabilities. The robot acts as a proxy for children with upper limb challenges, allowing them to participate in physical games with their peers. Our design was inspired by the FIRST Robotics Competition, which involves teleoperating robots to manipulate objects. Taking a user-centred perspective, we consulted therapists and conducted remote interviews with children with disabilities and their guardians at various stages of the design process. We then conducted an in-person feasibility study with 18 typically developing children in a school setting. The study involved children teleoperating the robot to pick up and throw balls into a designated goal, and the interaction was evaluated using the user experience questionnaire and the Robotic Social Attributes Scale. The results of the study show great potential for MyJay to act as a play mediator in various scenarios, and the response from the children was positive. The ultimate aim of our research agenda is to pave the way towards creating more inclusive play environments through robot-mediated interactions, breaking barriers posed by physical limitations.
Keywords: human-robot interaction, robot-assisted play, accessibility, designing for children, MyJay
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • Extending previous work
    • Overview of the article
  • 2.Designing MyJay
    • 2.1Overview of the design process
    • 2.2Robot design
      • 2.2.1Drivetrain
      • 2.2.2Intake, elevator and flywheel
      • 2.2.3Electronics
      • 2.2.4Software
      • 2.2.5Shell design
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Consulting therapists
    • 3.2Feedback from children with disabilities and their guardians
      • 3.2.1Protocol
      • 3.2.2Participants
    • 3.3Feasibility study
      • 3.3.1Study setup
      • 3.3.2Data collection
      • 3.3.3Protocol
      • 3.3.4Participants
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Feedback from therapists
    • 4.2Feedback from children with disabilities and their guardians
      • 4.2.1Thematic analysis
      • 4.2.2Personas
    • 4.3Feasibility study
      • 4.3.1Questionnaire analysis
      • 4.3.2Video analysis
      • 4.3.3Other observations
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Online interviews with therapists
    • 5.2Online interviews with children and their guardians
    • 5.3In-person feasibility study
  • 6.Conclusion and limitations
    • 6.1Limitations
  • 7.Perspectives and future research directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 7 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.00023.mah
References (56)
References
Adams, K., Julie, Y., & Cook, A. (2008). Lego robot control via a speech generating communication device for play and educational activities. RESNA Annual Conference. [URL]
Ali, S., Moroso, T., & Breazeal, C. (2019). Can children learn creativity from a social robot? In Proceedings of the 2019 on creativity and cognition (pp. 359–368). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves-Oliveira, P., Arriaga, P., Paiva, A., & Hoffman, G. (2019). Guide to build yolo, a creativity-stimulating robot for children. HardwareX, 6 1, e00074. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D. M., Bedini, L. A., & Moreland, L. (2005). Getting all girls into the game: Physically active recreation for girls with disabilities. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 23 (4).Google Scholar
Azizi, N. (2022). Exploring the use of assistive robotics in play and education for children with disabilities (Master’s thesis). University of Waterloo.
Besio, S. (2002). An italian research project to study the play of children with motor disabilities: The first year of activity. Disability and rehabilitation, 24 (1–3), 72–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Besio, S., Bulgarelli, D., & Stancheva-Popkostadinova, V. (2017). Play development in children with disabilties. De Gruyter Open Poland.Google Scholar
Bickford, R. G., Daly, D., & Keith, H. M. (1953). Convulsive effects of light stimulation in children. AMA American journal of diseases of children, 86 (2), 170–183. [URL]. DOI logo
Bjerke, T., Ødegårdstuen, T. S., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). Attitudes toward animals among norwegian children and adolescents: Species preferences. Anthrozoös, 11 (4), 227–235. [URL]. DOI logo
Brock, M. E., Dueker, S. A., & Barczak, M. A. (2018). Brief report: Improving social outcomes for students with autism at recess through peer-mediated pivotal response training. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48 (6), 22242230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canas, E., Garcia, A. M., Garrell, A., & Angulo, C. (2022). Initial test of “babyrobot” behaviour on a teleoperated toy substitution: Improving the motor skills of toddlers. 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 708–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dautenhahn, K., Nehaniv, C., Walters, M., Robins, B., Kose, H., Mirza, N., & Blow, M. (2009). Kaspar – a minimally expressive humanoid robot for human-robot interaction research. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 6 1, 369–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Wit, J., Willemsen, B., de Haas, M., Krahmer, E., Vogt, P., Merckens, M., Oostdijk, R., Savelberg, C., Verdult, S., & Wolfert, P. (2019). Playing charades with a robot: Collecting a large dataset of human gestures through hri. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 634–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
dos Santos, T. F., de Castro, D. G., Masiero, A. A., & Aquino Junior, P. T. (2014). Behavioral persona for human-robot interaction: A study based on pet robot. Human-Computer Interaction. Advanced Interaction Modalities and Techniques: 16th International Conference, HCI International 2014, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 22–27, 2014, Proceedings, Part II 16, 687–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duque, I., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K. L., Christianson, B., et al. (2013). A different approach of using personas in human-robot interaction: Integrating personas as computational models to modify robot companions’ behaviour. 2013 IEEE RO-MAN, 424–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, E., Robins, B., & Dautenhahn, K. (2009). Therapeutic and educational objectives in robot assisted play for children with autism. RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 108–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Field, S. J., & Oates, R. K. (2001). Sport and recreation activities and opportunities for children with spina bifida and cystic fibrosis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 4 (1), 71–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H., English, K., Shafer, K., & Kaczmarek, L. (1997). Interaction among preschoolers with and without disabilities: Effects of across-the-day peer intervention. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40 (1), 33–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Chung, H. L., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Liu, J., Bertenthal, B. I., Brand, R., Maguire, M. J., & Hennon, E. (2002). Young children can extend motion verbs to point-light displays. Developmental psychology, 38 (4), 604. [URL]
Gordon, N. S., Burke, S., Akil, H., Watson, S. J., & Panksepp, J. (2003). Socially-induced brain ‘fertilization’: Play promotes brain derived neurotrophic factor transcription in the amygdala and dorsolateral frontal cortex in juvenile rats. Neuroscience letters, 341 (1), 17–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutzler, Y., Fliess, O., Chacham, A., & Van den Auweele, Y. (2002). Perspectives of children with physical disabilities on inclusion and empowerment: Supporting and limiting factors. Adapted physical activity quarterly, 19 (3), 300–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivancevic, V. G., & Ivancevic, T. T. (2011). Lecture notes in lie groups.Google Scholar
Kanda, S., Sawabe, T., Kanbara, M., Fujimoto, Y., & Kato, H. (2022). A communication robot for playing video games together to boost motivation for daily-use. 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 831–833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koay, K. L., Webster, M., Dixon, C., Gainer, P., Syrdal, D., Fisher, M., & Dautenhahn, K. (2021). Use and usability of software verification methods to detect behaviour interference when teaching an assistive home companion robot: A proof-of-concept study. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 12 (1), 402–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kronreif, G., Prazak-Aram, B., Kornfeld, M., Stainer-Hochgatterer, A., & Fürst, M. (2007). Robot assistant “PlayROB” – user trials and results. RO-MAN 2007 – The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 113–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kronreif, G., Prazak-Aram, B., Mina, S., Kornfeld, M., Meindl, M., & Fürst, M. (2005). PlayROB – Robot-assisted playing for children with severe physical disabilities. Proceedings of the IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 193–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lathan, C., Brisben, A., & Safos, C. (2005). Cosmobot levels the playing field for disabled children. Interactions, 12 (2), 14–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahdi, H. (2021). Developing a semi-autonomous robot to engage children with special needs and their peers in robot-assisted play (Master’s thesis). University of Waterloo.
Mahdi, H., Saleh, S., Sanoubari, E., & Dautenhahn, K. (2021). User-centered social robot design: Involving children with special needs in an online world. 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 844–851. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahdi, H., Saleh, S., Shariff, O., & Dautenhahn, K. (2020). Creating myjay: A new design for robot-assisted play for children with physical special needs. International Conference on Social Robotics, 676–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaud, F., & Théberge-Turmel, C. (2002). Mobile robotic toys and autism. In Socially intelligent agents (pp. 125–132). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minamoto, A., & Zhang, Z. (2023). Aimoji, an affordable interaction kit that upcycles used toy as companion robot. Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 798–801. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, J. E., & Dautenhahn, K. (2021). Robo ludens: A game design taxonomy for multiplayer games using socially interactive robots. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 10 (4), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulos, F., Dautenhahn, K., & Ho, W. C. (2012). Exploring the use of robots as social mediators in a remote human-human collaborative communication experiment. Paladyn, 3 (1), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plass, J. L., O’Keefe, P. A., Homer, B. D., Case, J., Hayward, E. O., Stein, M., & Perlin, K. (2013). The impact of individual, competitive, and collaborative mathematics game play on learning, performance, and motivation. Journal of educational psychology, 105 (4), 1050. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Power, T. G. (1999). Play and exploration in children and animals. Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raj, L., & Czmerk, A. (2017). Modelling and simulation of the drivetrain of an omnidirectional mobile robot. Automatika: časopis za automatiku, mjerenje, elektroniku, računarstvo i komunikacije, 58 (2), 232–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rios-Rincon, A. M., Adams, K., Magill-Evans, J., & Cook, A. (2016). Playfulness in children with limited motor abilities when using a robot [PMID: 26566226]. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 36 (3), 232–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., & Dickerson, P. (2009). From isolation to communication: A case study evaluation of robot assisted play for children with autism with a minimally expressive humanoid robot. 2009 Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, 205–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandoval, E. B., Shi, J., Cruz-Sandoval, D., Li, B., Cappuccio, M., & Rosenbaum, S. (2021). A prototype of a robot memory game: Exploring the technical limitations of human-robot interaction in a playful context. Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 195–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scassellati, B., Boccanfuso, L., Huang, C.-M., Mademtzi, M., Qin, M., Salomons, N., Ventola, P., & Shic, F. (2018). Improving social skills in children with asd using a long-term, in-home social robot. Science Robotics, 3 (21). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schrepp, M., Hinderks, A., & Thomaschewski, J. (2017). Design and evaluation of a short version of the user experience questionnaire (ueq-s). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 4 ( 6 ), 103–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shields, N., Synnot, A. J., & Barr, M. (2012). Perceived barriers and facilitators to physical activity for children with disability: A systematic review. British journal of sports medicine, 46 (14), 989–997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smyth, M. M., & Anderson, H. I. (2000). Coping with clumsiness in the school playground: Social and physical play in children with coordination impairments. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18 (3), 389–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., Braun, V., Willig, C., & Rogers, W. S. (2017). The sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2 1, 17–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timmerman, E., & Ligthart, M. E. (2023). Let’s roll together: Children helping a robot play a dice game. Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 476–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tipper, B. (2011). A dog who i know quite well: Everyday relationships between children and animals. Children’s Geographies, 9 (2), 145–165. DOI logo
Urichuk, L., & Anderson, D. (2003). Improving mental health through animal-assisted therapy. Chimo Project Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. [URL]
Van den Heuvel, R., Lexis, M., & De Witte, L. P. (2017a). Robot ZORA in rehabilitation and special education for children with severe physical disabilities: A pilot study. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 40 (4), 353–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Heuvel, R., Lexis, M., Janssens, R. M., Marti, P., & De Witte, L. P. (2017b). Robots supporting play for children with physical disabilities: Exploring the potential of IROMEC. Technology and Disability, 29 (3), 109–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez, M., May, A., Steinfeld, A., & Chen, W.-H. (2011). A deceptive robot referee in a multiplayer gaming environment. 2011 international conference on collaboration technologies and systems (CTS), 204–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiberg, C., Harbottle, N., Cook, A. M., Adams, K., & Schulmeister, J. (2006). Robot assisted play for children with disabilities. 29th Annual RESNA Conference Proceedings. [URL]
Wilkinson, P., et al. (1983). Disabled children and integrated play environments. Recreation Research Review, 10 (1), 20–28.Google Scholar
Yang, B., Xie, X., Habibi, G., & Smith, J. R. (2021). Competitive physical human-robot game play. Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 242–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., on Psychosocial Aspects of Child, C., Health, F., et al. (2018). The power of play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in young children. Pediatrics, 142 (3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar