Using Lego Robots to Estimate
Cognitive Ability in Children
who have Severe Disabilities
Albert M. Cook1, Kim Adams1,2, Norma Harbottle1,
Cheryl Harbottle1
1 Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of
Alberta,
2Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada
Background
• Young children who have disabilities
can control robots to perform play
tasks,
• Some children are unable to
demonstrate cognitive abilities in
standardized testing
• Success with robot play tasks could
be a proxy measure
Background
• A set of cognitive skills required
for robot use by typically
developing children
• Causality, coordination of multiple
variables, reflectivity, binary logic,
and spatial relations
• This set provides a guide for
comparison of performance by
children with disabilities
performing robot tasks
Using a Robotic Arm, Children
Who Have Physical Disabilities:
• exert control over the
environment
• manipulate real objects (not
computer images)
• engage in turn taking activities
with a partner
General Themes from Teacher
Interviews in previous projects
•Children’s reactions to robot were very positive
•Robot tasks were more motivational (generated
more interest and excitement) than single
switch tasks with toys, appliances and
computer-based activities
•Vocalizations increased during & after robot
use
•Teachers and aides underestimated the level of
accomplishment of the children
•Level of accomplishment of the children
changed perceptions of teachers
and parents
Current project
Can low cost robots provide a means by which
children with severe disabilities can demonstrate
cognitive understanding of cognitive concepts?
Group design
Participants:
Ten children ages 4 to 10 participated in the
study. Their disabilities were primarily cerebral
palsy and related motor conditions. Widely
variable motor, cognitive and language abilities,
non-speaking.
A Lego Invention[1] “roverbot” vehicle was used.
[1] Lego Invention is a registered trademark of Lego.
http:/www.lego.com
Lego Mindstorms
Methods
• Initial tasks established
understanding of the switch
operation of robot
• Used single switch to “playback” prestored movements
• Controlled turning (left/right) and
movement (go/stop) using multiple
switches
The tools…
Lego Roverbot
Adapted Controller
Typical roverbot tasks
• Using one or two switches to draw
circles using the roverbot with a
pen attached.
• Two more switches added so that
left, right, stop and go could be
under the child’s control
Typical setup for robot play
Example of Robot in Use
Results
Proposed Hierarchy of Robot–Related
Skills
• Based on increasing levels of
cognitive skills required to
complete tasks, from
–Cognitive development theories
–Robot use by typically developing
children
Skill
Definition for
robot use
Age
Considerations
Lego Robot Example
1
Causality
Understanding the
relationship between a
switch and a resulting
effect
<3 yrs: "empty”
switch used
repeatedly[1]
Use switch to drive robot,
knocking over blocks,
drawing circles on paper
2
Spatial concepts-one
dimension
Judgment of distance
Piagetian Preoperational (2 to 7
years)
Moving and stopping at a
desired point in one
dimension
Binary Logic
Two opposite effects
such as on and not on
<4 yrs: difficulty
5-6 : understood[1]
Two switches with
opposite effects in terms of
robot action, i.e. turning
robot right/left
4
Spatial conceptsmultiple dimension
Judgment of distance
in multiple
dimensions,
movement in more
than one dimension
Piagetian Preoperational (2 to 7
years)
Moving roverbot to a
specific location
5
Symbolic Play
Make believe with real,
miniature or imaginary
props(Musselwhite,
1986)
Piagetian Preoperational (2 to 7
years)
Interactive play initiated by
subject, i.e. tea party,
exchanging toys.
3
Forman, G. (1986). Observations of young children solving problems with computers and robots.
J Res Childhood Educ, 1(2), 60-73.
[1]
Skill
Definition for robot
use
Age Considerations
Lego Robot Example
6
Negation
An action can be
negated by its
opposite
5 yrs: "what does this
switch do“[1]
Difference between latch
versus release to stop
7
Spatial conceptsmultiple
dimensions
Movement in more
than one dimension to
meet a functional
geometric goal
Piagetian Formal
Operations (age 11-12
through adult)
Drawing geometric
shapes on paper using
the roverbot
8
Problem solving
Generation of multiple
possible solutions
Piagetian Formal
Operations (age 11-12
through adult)
Ability to change
strategy
9
Systematic
problem solving
Problem solving with
a plan - not trial and
error
Piagetian Formal
Operations (age 11-12
through adult)
Placing objects in a
particular order
10
Formulation of
hypotheses
Developing
independent approach
to solve a problem
Piagetian Formal
Operations (age 11-12
through adult)
Changing task to meet
the child’s goal, i.e. pick
up tree prop to decorate
it
11
Solving multiple
aspects of a
problem
simultaneously
Combination of 8-10
above
Piagetian Formal
Operations (age 11-12
through adult)
Serving sushi while also
controlling arm, taking
orders, deciding who
gets what
[1]
From Forman (1986)
Summary Of Participant's
Demographic Information And
standardized evaluation
measures of:
Language (PPVT)
Motor (GMFM)
Cognitive (Leiter)
abilities
Participant
Chronological Age
PPVT*
GMFM
Leiter R
Level (age) Robot
Skill
L05
4 yrs 9 mo.
NT**
NT
NT
0
L02
7 yrs 1 mo.
NT
19
NT
1 (< 3 yrs)
L08
9 yrs 8 mo.
NT
17
NT
1 (< 3 yrs)
L11
9 yrs 7 mo.
NT
23
NT
1 (< 3 yrs)
L09
9 yrs 10 mo.
NT
6
NT
0
L12
10 yrs 0 mo.
NT
88
NT
5 (2 to 7 yrs)
L04
4 yrs 4 mo.
NT
7
NT
7 (> 5 yrs)
L06
7 yrs 5 mo.
59/60/2/6/1
87
50
7 (> 5 yrs)
L10
10 yrs 5 mo.
63/49/1/-/-
42
58
9 (11 to 12 yrs)
L01
9 yrs 5 mo.
94/79/8/-/-
21
73
11 (11 to 12 yrs)
*Raw Score /Standard Score/Percentile rank/Normal Curve Equivalent
**Not Testable
Summary Of Change in
Participant's Behavioral,
Language, and Social Skills
Change in
behavior?
Change in social
skills?
Change in language skills?
Participant
Reaction to
robot?
L05
~ not engaged
- angry
~ no
~ no
L02
+enjoyed
+ attention
+ responds to RAs
+ vocalized during task
L08
o
o
o
~ no
L011
+ aware
+ attention
+ responds to RAs
~ no
L09
o seemed to
get it
o
o
~ no
L012
+ enjoyed
+ attention
+ responds to RAs
+ vocalized during task
L04
+ loved
+enjoyed
+responds to RAs
~ no
L010
+ excited
+ attention
+ other kids asked
questions
+ vocalized about it before,
during and after
L06
+ loved
+ excited
+ mom reports more
interaction
+ vocalized before task, now
says 3 word sentences
L01
+ enjoyed
+ enjoyed
+ vocalized with
other students
+ vocalized with other
students
+ positive effect, o indeterminate, ~ no effect, - negative effect
Data used to support decision re: skill achievement
Skill Category
Data used to support decision
Causality
Hits switch then looks at robot, expecting a
movement
Number of verbal prompts decreases
Spatial concepts – one dimension
(Level 2)
Able to follow steps using one switch to stop
at required point
Binary (Addition of second switch)
(Level 3)
Number of errors in switch activation
decreases
Spatial concepts - multiple
dimensions simple movement (Level
4)
Able to follow steps using two or more
switches to attain a target
Diminishing errors
Symbolic Play (Level 5)
Use of labels for switches, tasks, use of
objects in imaginative way
Negation (Level 6)
Use of two switches with opposite effects
Spatial concepts - multiple
dimensions geometric goal (Level 7)
Able to follow a pattern using two or more
switches
Diminishing errors
Problem Solving (Levels 8-11)
Demonstration of strategies, hypothesis
formation and testing
Teacher’s aide comments
“I think [the robot] makes the learning
lots of fun – it also has them having
to think a lot more – with having to
move it certain ways plus having to
do the work – so for some it might be
tricky but I think [she] enjoyed the
challenge”
Teacher’s aide comments
Can you see ways that robots would be
useful in your classroom?
“I think for some of the kids that probably
have trouble learning it’s a really
interesting way of getting them
involved in the learning process.”
Conclusions
• There was significant variation in
motor, language and cognitive
function in the participants
• Extremes of all three parameters were
evident
• Motor ability was not directly related
to cognitive ability
• Also great variation in the skill
demonstrated while using the robot
Conclusions
Use of the robotic arm:
• Gives the child a chance to
demonstrate a range of cognitive skills
• Provides a versatile tool for
presentation of tasks, problems and
learning opportunities to the child
• Can avoid the limitations of
standardized test administration,
e.g. verbal response or manipulation of
objects
We gratefully Acknowledge
the funding of this work by
the Stollery Children’s
Hospital Foundation,
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
______________________
We also thank Johanna Darrah, Joanne
Volden and Robin Adkins for valuable
insight and advice