Characteristics of Mobile Robotic Toys for Children with
Pervasive Developmental Disorders *
Franois Michaud1 , Audrey Duquette2 , Isabelle Nadeau1
1
Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Engineering 2 Department of Psycho-Education
Universit de Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, Qubec (Canada)
Francois.Michaud@USherbrooke.ca
Abstract Pervasive developmental disorders (PDD)
refers to a group of disorders characterized by delays in
the development of multiple basic functions including
socialization and communication. Symptoms may include
communication problems such as using and
understanding language; difficulty relating to people,
objects, and events; unusual play with toys and other
objects; difficulty with changes in routine or familiar
surroundings, and repetitive body movements or behavior
patterns [1]. Autism is the most characteristic and best
studied PDD. We are investigating the use of mobile
robotic toys that can move in the environment and interact
in various manners (vocal messages, music, visual cues,
movement, etc.) with children with autism. The hypothesis
is that mobile robots can serve as an appropriate
pedagogical tool to help children with PDD develop
social skills because they are more predictable and less
intimidating. The objective is to see how such devices can
be used to capture the childs attention and contribute to
helping him or her develop social skills. This paper
outlines the design considerations for such robots, and
presents experimental protocols that are being developed
to study the impacts of using these robots on the
development of the child.
Keywords: Mobile robot, pervasive developmental
disorders, autism.
1 Introduction
Children with pervasive developmental disorders
(like autism) are characterized by severe and pervasive
impairment in social interaction skills, communication
skills and the presence of stereotyped behavior, interests,
and activities. Children with PDD vary widely in
abilities, intelligence, and behaviors: some do not speak
at all, others speak in limited phrases or conversations,
and some have relatively normal language development
[1]. Repetitive play skills and limited social skills are
generally evident [1]. Unusual responses to sensory
information like loud noises and lights are also common
[1]. A lot remains to be discovered about the causes and
the cure of autism, and care and therapeutic approaches can
help people with autism maximize their potential, even
though impairments in social and communication skills
may persist throughout life. One of the challenges is to
find appropriate pedagogical tools that can catch the
*
0-7803-7952-7/03/$17.00 2003 IEEE.
Universit de Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, Qubec (Canada)
childs attention and generate interest in learning to
develop social and communication skills.
A solution with a lot of potential is to use robotic
toys that can interact in interesting ways, creating novel,
appealing and meaningful interplay situations using
speech, sounds, visual cues and movement. The robot can
ask the child to imitate its movements. Mobile robotic
toys are colorful and small, which make them less
intimidating than an adult. Robotic toys also have the
advantage that they can be programmed to respond
differently to situations and events. A robot can follow a
deterministic play routine but they can act according to
the unexpected situations experienced in the environment
or caused while interacting with a child. A robot can also
learn over time and change the ways it responds to the
world, generating more sophisticated interactions and
unpredictable situations that can help capture and retain
the child's interest. This flexibility allows robotic toys to
evolve from simple machines to systems that demonstrate
more complex behavior patterns. In our case, the
interaction framework created by our robots is to get the
attention of the child, asks the child to do something, and
to reward the child if the request is successfully satisfied.
For five years now we have been experimenting with
many different kinds of mobile robotic toys. Since each
child has his or her own personality, interests and
capabilities, it was important to see how children react to
robots of different shapes, sizes and functionalities. This
paper reports experiments done with children with autism
and other learning disabilities. The mobile robots have
been used in experiments ranging from single sessions of
a couple of minutes to consecutive use over a five weeks
period. The objective at this stage is to outline what
works and what does not work in trying to find incentives
for the child to make the effort of opening up to his or her
surroundings. In this paper we present the specifications
that we have learned to be the most appropriate for
designing such robots, and the experimental protocols that
are being developed to study the impacts of using these
robots on the development of the child.
2 Previous experiments groups of children at the S.P.E.C. Tintamarre Summer
camps.
Using interactive robotic toys as part of the
educational program is surely an interesting idea that has
2.1 Short sessions
the potential of providing an additional intervention
method to the rehabilitation process of autistic children. These sessions were held in two rooms and in three
The AURORA project (AUtonomous RObotic platform as different occasions: in a regular classroom, and in a 20' by
a Remedial tool for children with Autism) [3,4,5,12] is 20' room without tables and chair. In some sessions the
one of such initiatives. Just to cite the general aspects of robots were presented one by one to each child, while in
this project, AURORA investigates how an autonomous others the robots were working simultaneously and
mobile robot can be develop into a remedial tool in order children were brought in and out by the educators.
to encourage children to become engaged in a variety of Children were allowed to interact freely with the robots.
different interactions that possess features which are At all time at least one educator was there to introduce the
important elements of human social behavior (eye-contact, robot to children, or to intervene in case of trouble. Each
joint attention, approach, avoidance, following, turn- session lasted around one hour and a half, allowing eight
taking, imitation games, etc.) [4]. A non-humanoid robot to ten children to play with the robots. No special
is used, based on the observation that autistic children attention was put on trial length for each child, since our
prefer predictable, stable environments, and that they have goal was to let all the children of the class play with the
difficulty interpreting facial expressions and other social robots in the allocated time slot. Here is a summary of
cues. The robot used in their experiments is a Labo-1 observations made with some of robots, shown in Figure
mobile platform, with a rectangular body and four wheels, 1, used in these trials [5].
eight infrared proximity sensors, and a positional heat
sensor. The idea is to use the robot to bridge the gap
between the variety and unpredictability of human social
behavior and the predictability of repetitive and
monotonous behavior so appreciated by children with
autism and that can be reproduced continuously by mobile
robots. Experiments with the Robota doll [2] was also
done as part of the AURORA project. Robota is an
intelligent robotic doll that can communicate by moving
and by perceiving contact on different parts of its body,
imitate the arm and head movements of a user, and learn Jumbo Roball
sentences to describe its actions, combination of
movements and simple dance patterns.

Since 1998 we at the Department of Electrical

Engineering and Computer Engineering of the Universit
de Sherbrooke have been designing a great variety of
mobile robotic toys with the goal of using them as
pedagogical tools for children suffering from autism or
other developmental disorders. Since each child is a
distinct individual with preferences and capabilities, it
might not be possible to design one complete robotic toy
that can help capture and retain the interest of every child.
So our strategy is to design many different types of CPAC Bobus
robots, and observe the possible factors that might
influence the child's interests in interacting with a robotic
toy, like shape, colors, sounds, music, voice, movements,
dancing, trajectory, special devices, etc., and learning
from our observations to design new robots that could in
the near future be used by parents and educators. These
designs are made as part of a design project at the
undergraduate level in the Electrical Engineering and
Computer Engineering curricula [9,10,11]. Experiments
using promising designs are conducted by LABORIUS,
the research laboratory on mobile robotics and intelligent
systems of the Universit de Sherbrooke.
Diskcat Maestro
Two types of experiments have been conducted with Figure 1. Examples of mobile robotic toys.
autistic children: short sessions at the cole du Touret,
and using robots over a couple of weeks period with
 Jumbo is an elephant has a moving head and trunk,
one pyroelectric sensor and an infrared range sensor.
Jumbo is programmed to move toward the child and
to stop at a distance of 20 cm. Once close to the
child, Jumbo asks the child to touch one of the three
buttons associated with pictograms located on its
back. LEDs are used at first to help the child locate
the right pictogram, but eventually the LEDs are not
used. If the child is successful, Jumbo raises its
trunk and plays some music (Baby's Elephant Walk
or Asterix the Gaulish). If the child is not
responding, the robot asks to play and can try to
reposition itself in front of the child. Pictograms on
the robot can be easily replaced. This robot revealed
to be very robust, even though its pyroelectric lenses
got damaged too. One child liked to push the robot
around when it was not moving, or to make the robot
stay close to her if it was moving away. The
pictogram game was also very nice, but children were
pressing on the pictograms instead of on the buttons.
The music played and movements of the trunk were
also very appreciated by the children.
Roball [7] is a spherical robot capable of navigating
in all kind of environments without getting stuck
somewhere or falling on the side. Interactions can be
done using vocal messages and movement patterns
like spinning, shaking or pushing. The majority of
children were trying to catch Roball, to grab it or to
touch the robot. Some even made it spin (but not
always when requested by Roball though). One boy,
who did not interact much with almost all of the
other robots presented, went by himself in order to
play with Roball. One of the games he played was to
make the robot roll on the floor between his arms,
and eventually let it go forward by itself.
C-Pac is a very robust robot that has removable arms
and tail. These removable parts use connectors that
have different geometrical shape (star, triangle,
hexagon). When successfully assembled, the robot
thanks the child and rotates on itself. The robot also
asks the child to make it dance by pressing its head.
The head then becomes illuminated, and music (La
Bamba) is played as the robot dances, and this was
very much appreciated by children. C-Pac also has a
moving mouth, eyes made of LEDs, an infrared range
sensor and pyroelectric sensors to stay close to the
child. Children learned rapidly how to play with this
robot, even understanding by themselves how to
assemble the robot. The removable parts became toys
on their own. Children were also surprised when
they grabbed the robot by its arms or tail, expecting
to grab the robot but instead removing the part from
the robot. Note however that the pyroelectric lenses
got damaged by the children, and one even took off
the plastic cup covering one eye of the robot and tried
to ate it.
Extremely robust, Bobus can detect the presence of a
child using pyroelectric sensors. It then slowly moves
closer to the child, and when close enough it does
simple movements and plays music. Simple requests
(like touching) are made to the child and if the child
responds at the appropriate time, light effects are
generated using the LEDs all around the `neck' of the
robot, and the small ventilator on its head is
activated. Very robust, this robot is the only one with
pyroelectric senses that did not got damaged. Two
little girls really liked the robot, enjoying the light
effects, the moving head with the ventilator, and the
different textures. At one point, one girl lifted the
robot and was making it roll on its side on top of her
legs. She then put the robot on the floor and was
making it roll on its side using her legs again, but by
lying on top of the robot.
As expected, each child had his or her own ways of
interacting with the robots. Some remained seated on the
floor, looking at the robot and touching it when it came
close to them (if the robot move to a certain distance,
some children just stop looking at the robot). Others
moved around, approaching and touching the robots and
sometime showing signs of excitation. In general, we did
not observed particular attention to the front of the robots,
mostly because most of them have devices all around
them. Even though these children were not capable of
fluent speech, some were able to understand the short
messages generated by the robots. It is very hard to
generalize the results of these experiments since each child
is so different. In addition, the mood of some of the
children that participated to all of these sessions was not
always the same. But one thing that we can say is that the
robots surely caught the attention of the children, making
them smile, laugh or react vocally.
One very interesting observation was made with
another robot (Diskcat) and one little girl of about 10
years of age. This robot has a special fur exterior and
looks like a cat. Games like Simon says, dancing and
visual effects using LEDs as eyes and on the back of the
robot have been implemented. Resistive bend sensors are
used as whiskers. When she usually enters the recreation
room, she starts right away to follow the walls, and she
can do this over and over again, continuously. Figure 2
shows the trajectory she did with the robot in the room.
The robot was near a wall, not moving (region A). The
little girl started to follow the walls of the room, and
interacted with the robot for short amount of times, at the
request of the educator as she went by the robot.
Eventually, the robot moved away from the walls (region
B) and she slowly started to stop, first at one particular
corner of the room (region 1), and then at a second place
(region 2) for looking at the robot moving around. At one
point when the robot got to a corner of the room (region
C), she took the robot by its tale and dragged it back to
the center of the room where she believed the robot should
be. She even smiled and made eye contact with some of
us, something that she did not do with strangers. This
showed clear indications that having the robot moved in
the environment helped her gradually open up to her
surroundings.

C talked to the robot, reacted when it was not behaving
2 1
B first reaction was to observe the robot from a distance, but
A
Figure 2. Overhead view of the trajectory done by a girl
with DiskCat in the room.
2.2 Trials at S.P.E.C. Tintamarre Summer Camps
Three sets of experiments were conducted over the
years. In a first set of trials, Jumbo was used one day a
week over a period of five weeks, for 30 to 40 minutes in
four different groups. Children and young adults were
grouped according to the severity of their conditions, their
autonomy and their age. Four to ten people were present
in each group, along with two or three educators, and each
group had its own room. Children were placed in a circle,
sitting down on the floor or on small cubes depending on
their physical capabilities. The robot always remained on
the floor, and each child played in turns with the
pictograms. Once a turn was completed, a new set of
pictograms was used.
With the groups that did not have physical
disabilities, children manifested their interests as soon as
Jumbo entered the room, either by looking at the robot or
by going to touch it, to push it, to grab the trunk or by
pressing on the pictograms. The music and the dance were
very much appreciated by the children. The amount of
interactions varied greatly from one child to another.
Some remained seated on the floor and played when the
robot was close to them. Others either cleared the way in
front of the robot, or moved away from its path when it
was coming in their direction. The amount of time they
remained concentrated on the robot was longer than for the
other activities they did as a group. One little girl who
did not like animals, had no trouble petting Jumbo. She
was also playing in place of others when they took too
much time responding to a request or did mistakes. One
boy did the same thing (even by going through the circle),
and he was very expressive (by lifting his arms in the air)
when he succeeded with the pictograms.
To the group of teenagers, Jumbo is real. They
correctly or when it was not moving toward them. Some
educators were also playing along because they were
talking to Jumbo as if it was a real animal, by calling its
name, asking it to come closer. When Jumbo did not
respond correctly and was moving away, educators would
say something like ``Jumbo! You should clean your ears!''
or Jumbo has big ears but cannot hear a thing!'. One
boy showed real progress in his participation, his
motivation and his interactions because of the robot. His
he rapidly started to participate. His interest toward the
robot was greater than the other kids. He remembered the
pictograms and the interactions they had with the robot
from one week to another. He also understood how to
change the pictograms and asked frequently the educators
to let him do it. Another boy also liked to take Jumbo in
his arms, like an animal. He showed improvements in
shape and color recognition.
In the second set of trials, children came one by one
to play with a robot in a classroom where Diskcat and a
real dog were. The first observation made was that it is
important to let the child become familiar with the room
so that his or her attention is not drawn to other things in
the room. The same familiarization phase by the child is
required to get to know the robot or the dog. Some
children were more interested to play with the robot,
others with the dog. Having an educator encourage what
the child is doing correctly with the robot or the dog,
letting him or her take the time to interact correctly to
what happens and showing them that they can succeed
have very positive impacts on the child. Children also
know that the dog is real and the robot is not a living
entity. However, the dog eventually get tired when the
child does not interact appropriately, but not the robot.
The third set of trials was done in a room with only
the robot, Maestro, in the middle. Before entering the
room, we showed a pictogram of the robot to the child.
Maestro is programmed to move around in the
environment, goes toward the child and interact using an
illuminated keyboard. Different musical games are offered,
and when the child succeed the puppet smiles and
vibrates, and the robot dances. We let the child play with
robot 15 minutes at a time, observe what was happening
from a distance but intervene whenever necessary. These
observations led us to the elaboration of the list of
considerations for the design of mobile robotic toys for
children with autism, presented in Section 3.
3 Considerations for the design of
mobile robotic toys
Our experiments revealed that autistic children are
interested by the movements made by the robots, and
enjoy interacting with these devices. Robustness of the
robots is surely of great importance, as some of the more
fragile designs got damaged, but mostly by the same
child. Having removable parts is good as long as they are
big enough: all small components or material that can be
easily removed should be avoided. Having the robots
behave in particular ways (like dancing, playing music,
etc.) when the child responds correctly to requests made
by the robot becomes an incentive for the child to
continue playing with the robots. The idea is to create
rewarding games that can be easily understood (because of
its simplicity or because it exploit other skills develop in
other activities like the use of pictograms or geometrical
shapes) by the child.
First, the robotic toy should take into consideration
the following characteristics associated with children with
autism:
Deficits in visual sense. The physical appearance of
the robot should by itself be a good incentive for
catching the childs attention. Nice colors, round
shapes, lights, objects that rotate, or mechanical parts
(many children get very curious with how the robot
works). Avoid too bright colors, sharp edges, ropes.
Deficits in auditory sense. Children like intriguing
sounds, music, songs. Do not make very high or low
pitch sounds or very loud noise. Sounds must be
used to catch the attention of the child without
scaring him or her.
Deficits in touching. Soft, robust, safe and washable
surfaces should be used to make the external structure
of the robot. Removable parts are also very
appreciated by children. Children like to explore,
manipulate and put things in their mouth. Everything
that should not be touched by children should be
adequately hidden.
Deficits in spatial perception. Children with autism
have difficulties noticing what is particular and what
is common in an environment. They might be more
interested by the walls than by an object placed in the
middle of a room. That is why the robot should, by
its motion, its sounds and its appearance, be designed
to capture as much as possible the attention of the
child.
Deficits in language. Visual elements like images and
photos are more appropriate that just use words. The
vocabulary used by the robot must be very simple,
messages should be short (three words or less) and
repeated frequently. Words should refer to concrete
things rather than abstract notions.
Deficits in symbolic games. Games with the robot
should be simple and easy to understand. Children
with autism do not play like regular children. Sharing
and imitation are something that they do not
naturally do. The robot should be designed to help
children develop such skills.
Particularities of each child. Since each child is an
individual with distinct interests and capabilities, the
robot should offer different set of games and
capabilities that can evolve over time and be adapted
to the child. The robot should encourage and
congratulate the child when he or she is doing well,
but must not critic incorrect response to requests
made.
4 On-going work
With all of the experiments done so far
demonstrating the potential interests and characteristics of
using mobile robotic toys with children with autism, we
are now designing a mobile robot specifically to conduct
experiments that will evaluate the scientific impacts on
children and not just the engineering aspects.
The robot will be approximately 60 cm tall. It will
use wheels to move, but its structure will show two feet
and two legs. It will also have two articulated arms that
will be able to move up or down, a head that can rotate
(to say no) and rise up (to surprise the child), a mouth (for
smiling), a nose, two eyes and hair (made with fiber optic
cable to illuminate them). It will be possible to illuminate
each part of its body. The robot will be read, blue and
yellow. The robot will be capable of autonomous motion
(avoiding obstacles) and it will be possible to teleoperate
the robot using a RF remote control. A series of vocal
messages will be able to be generated by the robot. The
robot will also be able to sense if it is being shaken or if
it has flipped over. The activation button will be hidden
on the back of the robot. The robot must be simple
enough so that it can be operated by non-robotic experts.
The objectives of these new sets of experiments are
to see if a mobile robot can make the child imitate it, and
if the robot can help the child learn his or her different
body parts. The hypothesis is that if the child can imitate
the robot, the child gets interested not only in objects in
general but also in something that is similar to humans in
its mobility and some of its skills. Also, we assume that
body representation can be developed from the perception
of others, the communication with others and the
imitation of others.
Fives game scenarios are going to be experimented,
with the robot being teleoperated. Each child will play for
about 10 minutes with the robot, three times per week.
Each scenario will be experimented over two week
periods. At the end of each of these scenarios the robot
will leave the room by saying: Robot done, Door,
Bye bye. All of the experiments are going to be
recorded and analyzed using five evaluation forms. The
children will have approximately four years old with the
ability to understand simple sentences and words. Four
children will be selected for the experiments, using the
diagnostic tool ADOS-G [6].
The first is to get familiarized with the robot. To
begin, the robot starts by telling the child it status while
moving in the room and having one arm rising up: Me
robot, Me happy (and smile), Me walking. The robot
is going to point different objects in the room and
identify these objects. The second scenario is to identify
persons that the child knows. A photo of these persons are
going to be placed on a wall, and the robot will point the
photos and ask the child questions like: Where Mom?,
Where you?, etc. The third scenario aims at the
identification of the childs body parts. The robot will
illuminate one of its parts and say which part it is. Then
the robot will ask the child to do the same. The fourth
scenario is an imitation game. The robot will ask the
child to do the same things it is doing (like moving
forward, backward, turning, etc.). In these last three
games, when the child succeeds, the robot will smile and
raise its arms. If the child fails, the robot will just say
no and shake its head. The fifth scenario is a hide-and-
seek game. These trials are going to take place in the Fall
2003.
5 Conclusion
Engineers need to combine their expertise with
scientists in the field of autism, in order to get interesting
insights that will help guide the design of innovative new
robots. The application describes in this paper is only one
example of such rich source of multidisciplinary research.
Our hope is that mobile robotic toys can become efficient
therapeutic tools that will help children with autism
develop early on the necessary skills they need to
compensate for and cope with their disability.
Acknowledgment
Franois Michaud holds the Canada Research Chair
(CRC) in Mobile Robotics and Autonomous Intelligent
Systems. This research is supported financially by the
CRC Program, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation
(CFI) and the Fonds Qubcois de la Recherche sur la
Nature et les Technologies (FQRNT) of Qubec. The
authors also want to thank the teams of students involved
in the design of the robots used for these experiments, and
more specifically those who went to test their robots with
autistic children.
References
[1] URL: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical
/disorders/pdd.htm.
[2] A. Billard, Play, dreams and imitation in Robota,
in Proceedings Workshop on Interactive Robotics and
Entertainment, pages 53-59, 2000.
[3] K. Dautenhahn, Robots as social actors: AURORA
and the case of autism, in Proceedings of the
International Cognitive Technology Conference, San
Francisco, 1999.
[4] K. Dautenhahn, Socially intelligent agents and the
primate social brain - Towards a science of social minds,
in Technical Report FS-00-04, AAAI Fall Symposium on
Socially Intelligent Agents - The Human in the Loop,
pages 35-51, 2000.
[5] K. Dautenhahn, I. Werry, J. Rae, P. Dickerson, P.
Stribling, and B. Ogden, Robotic playmates: Analysing
interactive competencies of children with autism playing
with a mobile robot, in Intelligent Agents Creating
Relationships with Computers and Robots, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 2002.
[6] C. Lord, S. Risi, L. Lambrecht, E.H. Jr. Cook,
B.L. Leventhal, P.C., DiLavore, A. Pickles, M. Rutter,
The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic: a
standard measure of social and communication deficits
associated with the spectrum of autism, Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(3):205-223,
2000.
[7] F. Michaud and S. Caron, Roball - An autonomous
toy-rolling robot, in Proceedings of the Workshop on
Interactive Robotics and Entertainment, 2000.
[8] F. Michaud and C. Thberge-Turmel, Mobile
robotic toys and autism, in Intelligent Agents Creating
Relationships with Computers and Robots, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 2002.
[9] F. Michaud, M. Lucas, G. Lachiver, A. Clavet, J.M.
Dirand, N. Boutin, P. Mabilleau, and J. Descteaux,
Using ROBUS in Electrical and Computer Engineering
education, in Proceedings American Society for
Engineering Education, Charlotte, June 1999.
[10] F. Michaud, A. Clavet, G. Lachiver, and M. Lucas,
Designing toy robots to help autistic children - An open
design project for Electrical and Computer Engineering
education, in Proceedings American Society for
Engineering Education, St-Louis, June 2000.
[11] F. Michaud and A. Clavet, Organization of the
RoboToy Contest, in Proceedings American Society for
Engineering Education, Alberqueque, June 2001.
[12] I. Werry and K. Dautenhahn, Applying robot
technology to the rehabilitation of autistic children, in
Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Intelligent Robotic Systems, 1999.