Through this meta-analysis we aimed to provide an estimation of the overall effect of robot-enhanced therapy on psychological outcome for different populations, to provide average effect sizes on different outcomes, such as cognitive, behavioral and subjective, and to test possible moderators of effect size. From a total of 861 considered studies for this meta-analysis, only 12 were included because of the lack of studies that have reported quantitative data in this area and because of their primary focus on describing the process of robotic development rather than measuring psychological outcomes. We calculated Cohen's d effect sizes for every outcome measure for which sufficient data were reported. The results show that robot-enhanced therapy yielded a medium effect size overall and, specifically on the behavioral level, indicating that 69% of patients in the control groups did worse than the average number of participants in the intervention group. More studies are needed with regard to specific outcomes to prove the efficacy of robot-enhanced therapy, but the overall results clearly support the use of robot-enhanced therapy for different populations.
References marked with an asterisk (*) denote articles included in the meta-analysis.
2.
*AdmoniH., BankC., TanJ., TonevaM., & ScassellatiB. (2011). Robot gaze does not reflexively cue human attention. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1983–1988). Boston, MA: CSS.
3.
BainbridgeW. A., HartJ., KimE. S., & ScassellatiB. (2008). The effect of presence on human–robot interaction. In The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2008 (pp. 701–706). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
4.
*BainbridgeW. A., HartJ. W., KimE. S., & ScassellatiB. (2011). The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3, 41–52. doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7
5.
BartneckC., & ForlizziJ. (2004). A design-centered framework for social human-robot interaction. In 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2004 (pp. 591–594). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
6.
*BekeleE. T., LahiriU., SwansonA. R., CrittendonJ. A., WarrenZ. E., & SarkarN. (2013). A step towards developing adaptive robot-mediated intervention architecture (ARIA) for children with autism. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 21, 289–299.
7.
BemelmansR., GelderblomG. J., JonkerP., & de WitteL. (2012). Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into effects and effectiveness. JAMDA: The Journal of Post-Acute and Long Term Care Medicine, 13, 114–120. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002
8.
*BeranT. N., Ramirez-SerranoA., VanderkooiO. G., & KuhnS. (2013). Reducing children's pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: A novel and effective application of humanoid robotics. Vaccine, 31, 2772–2777. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.056
9.
BesioS., CaprinoF., & LaudannaE. (2008). Profiling robot-mediated play for children with disabilities through ICF-CY: The example of the European project IROMEC. In MiesenbergerK., KlausJ., ZaglerW., & KarshmerA. (), Computers helping people with special needs (pp. 545–552). Berlin: Springer.
10.
BickmoreT., & CassellJ. (2001). Relational agents: A model and implementation of building user trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 396–403.
BroekensJ., HeerinkM., & RosendalH. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: A review. Gerontechnology, 8, 94–103. doi:10.4017/gt.2009.08.02.002.00
13.
BurgoonJ. K., BonitoJ. A., BengtssonB., CederbergC., LundebergM., & AllspachL. (2000). Interactivity in human–computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 553–574. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00029-7
14.
CostescuC., & DavidD. (in press). Attitudes toward using social robots in psychotherapy. Transylvanian Journal of Psychology.
15.
DautenhahnK. (1999). Robots as social actors: Aurora and the case of autism. In Proceedings Third International Cognitive Technology Conference CT99 (Vol. 359, p. 374). Retrieved fromhttp://www.cyber.rdg.ac.uk/people/kd/WWW/home.html
16.
DautenhahnK., & WerryI. (2004). Towards interactive robots in autism therapy: Background, motivation and challenges. Pragmatics & Cognition, 12, 1–35. doi:10.1075/pc.12.1.03dau
17.
DavidO., MatuS., & DavidD. (2014). Robot-based psychotherapy: Concepts development, state of the art, and new directions. The case of robot-based cognitive behavior therapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 192–210.
18.
DiehlJ. J., SchmittL. M., VillanoM., & CrowellC. R. (2012). The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A critical review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 249–262. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.006
Feil-SeiferD., & MataricM. J. (2005). Defining socially assistive robotics. In 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. (pp. 465–468). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
21.
*HanJ., JoM., JonesV., & JoJ. H. (2008). Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 4, 159–168. doi:10.3745/JIPS.2008.4.4.159
22.
HancockP. A., BillingsD. R., SchaeferK. E., ChenJ. Y., De VisserE. J., & ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Human Factors, 53, 517–527. doi:10.1177/0018720811417254
23.
HoytC. L., BlascovichJ., & SwinthK. R. (2003). Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 183–195. doi:10.1162/105474603321640932
24.
HunterJ. E., & SchmidtF. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
JungY., & LeeK. M. (2004). Effects of physical embodiment on social presence of social robots. In Proceedings of PRESENCE (pp. 80–87). Valencia, Spain: ISPR.
26.
KiddC. D., & BreazealC. (2004). Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004: Proceedings (Vol. 4, pp. 3559–3564). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
27.
KiddC. D., TaggartW., & TurkleS. (2006). A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. (pp. 3972–3976). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
28.
*KimE. S., BerkovitsL. D., BernierE. P., LeyzbergD., ShicF., PaulR., & ScassellatiB. (2013). Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1038–1049.
29.
KozimaH., NakagawaC., & YasudaY. (2005). Interactive robots for communication- care: A case-study in autism therapy. In IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005 (ROMAN 2005; pp. 341–346). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
30.
KwakkelG., KollenB. J., & KrebsH. I. (2008). Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: A systematic review. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 22, 111–121. doi:10.1177/1545968307305457
31.
*LeyzbergD., SpauldingS., TonevaM., & ScassellatiB. (2012). The physical presence of a robot tutor increases cognitive learning gains. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
32.
LibinA. V., & LibinE. V. (2004). Person–robot interactions from the robopsychologists’ point of view: The robotic psychology and robotherapy approach. Proceedings of the IEEE, 92, 1789–1803. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2004.835366
33.
McGoughJ. J., & FaraoneS. V. (2009). Estimating the size of treatment effects: Moving beyond p values. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 6, 21–29.
34.
MichaudF., & ClavetA. (2001). Robotoy contest-designing mobile robotic toys for autistic children. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE’01). Washington, DC: ASEE.
35.
MordochE., OsterreicherA., GuseL., RogerK., & ThompsonG. (2013). Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: A literature review. Maturitas, 74, 14–20. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.10.015
36.
MureşanV., MontgomeryG. H., & DavidD. (2012). Emotional outcomes and mechanisms of change in online cognitive–behavioral interventions: A quantitative meta-analysis of clinical controlled studies. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30, 1–13. doi:10.1080/15228835.2011.653290
37.
OprişD., PinteaS., Garcia-PalaciosA., BotellaC., SzamoskoziS., & DavidD. (2012). Virtual reality exposure therapy in anxiety disorders: A quantitative meta-analysis. Depression and Anxiety, 29, 85–93. doi:10.1002/da.20910
38.
ParkS., & CatramboneR. (2007). Social facilitation effects of virtual humans. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49, 1054–1060. doi:10.1518/001872007X249910
39.
*PopC., PinteaS., VanderborghtB., & DavidD. (2014). Enhancing play skills, engagement and social skills in a play task in ASD children by using robot-based interventions. A pilot study. Interaction Studies, 15, 292–320.
40.
*PopC., SimutR., PinteaS., SaldienJ., RusuA., VanderfaeillieJ., … VanderborghtB. (2013). Social robots vs. computer display: Does the way social stories are delivered make a difference for their effectiveness on ASD children?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49, 381–401. doi:10.2190/EC.49.3.f
41.
PowersM. B., & EmmelkampP. M. (2008). Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 561–569. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.04.006
42.
PrescottT. J., EptonT., EversV., McKeeK., HawleyM., WebbT. L., … DarioP. (2012). Robot companion for citizens: Roadmapping the potential for future robots in empowering older people. In Bridging Research into Ageing and ICT Development. Prague, Czech Republic: Institute for Informatics and Digital Innovation.
43.
RegerM. A., & GahmG. A. (2009). A meta-analysis of the effects of internet-and computer-based cognitive–behavioral treatments for anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 53–75. doi:10.1002/jclp.20536
44.
RicksD. J., & ColtonM. B. (2010). Trends and considerations in robot-assisted autism therapy. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA; pp. 4354–4359). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
45.
*RietherN., HegelF., WredeB., & HorstmannG. (2012). Social facilitation with social robots?In Human–robot Interaction (HRI), 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on (pp. 41–47). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
46.
RobinsB., AmirabdollahianF., JiZ., & DautenhahnK. (2010). Tactile interaction with a humanoid robot for children with autism: A case study analysis involving user requirements and results of an initial implementation. In IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication: Proceedings, 2010 (pp. 704–711). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2010.5598641
47.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research: Vol. 6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412984997
48.
ScassellatiB., AdmoniH., & MataricM. (2012). Robots for use in autism research. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 14, 275–294. doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150036
49.
SimutR., PopC., VanderfaeillieJ., LefeberD., & VanderborghtB. (2012, July). Trends and future of social robots for ASD therapies: Potential and limits in interaction. Paper presented at the International Conference on Innovative Technologies for Autism Spectrum Disorders: Tools, Trends and Testimonials, Valencia, Spain.
50.
*StantonC. M., KahnP. H., SeversonR. L., RuckertJ. H., & GillB. T. (2008, March). Robotic animals might aid in the social development of children with autism. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–robot Interaction, (pp. 271–278). New York, NY: ACM.
51.
TakayamaL., & PantofaruC. (2009). Influences on proxemic behaviors in human–robot interaction. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2009: Proceedings (pp. 5495–5502). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
52.
TapusA., PecaA., AlyA., PopC., JisaL., PinteaS., … DavidD. O. (2012). Children with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot A series of single case experiments. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 13, 315–347. doi:10.1075/is.13.3.01tap
53.
ThillS., PopC. A., BelpaemeT., ZiemkeT., & VanderborghtB. (2012). Robot-assisted therapy for autism spectrum disorders with (partially) autonomous control: Challenges and outlook. Paladyn, 3, 209–217. doi:10.2478/s13230-013-0107-7
54.
VanderborghtB., SimutR., SaldienJ., PopC., RusuA. S., PinteaS., DirkL., & DavidD. O. (2012). Using the social robot probo as a social story telling agent for children with ASD. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 13, 348–372. doi:10.1075/is.13.3.02van
55.
WadaK., ShibataT., SaitoT., & TanieK. (2002). Analysis of factors that bring mental effects to elderly people in robot assisted activity. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2002. (Vol. 2, pp. 1152–1157). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
56.
WadaK., ShibataT., SaitoT., & TanieK. (2004). Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. Proceedings of the IEEE, 92, 1780–1788. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2004.835378
57.
WainerJ., Feil-SeiferD. J., ShellD. A., & MataricM. J. (2007). Embodiment and human–robot interaction: A task-based perspective. In The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication: Proceedings, 2007 (pp. 872–877). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
58.
*WoodL. J., DautenhahnK., RainerA., RobinsB., LehmannH., & SyrdalD. S. (2013). Robot-mediated interviews-how effective is a humanoid robot as a tool for interviewing young children?PloS One, 8, e59448. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059448
59.
ZanbakaC. A., UlinskiA. C., GoolkasianP., & HodgesL. F. (2007). Social responses to virtual humans: Implications for future interface design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1561–1570). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
