1. MOTIVATION OF CHILDREN
WITH CEREBRAL PALSY
BY RAC-CP FUN
(ROBOTICS AGENT COACHER FOR CP
MOTOR FUNCTION)
Dr. Marina Fridin1
Dr. Mark Belokopytov2,3
1Ariel University Center
2Assaf Harofeh Medical Center
3Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
The Therapeutic and Educational Social Robotics Lab
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

2. CEREBRAL PALSY (CP)
- Spectrum of non-progressive syndromes of posture and
motor impairments that result from an insult to the
developing central nervous system
• Characterized by:
• body function impairments
• activity limitations
• participation limitations
Often accompanied by disturbances of sensation,
cognition, communication, perception, and/or behaviour.
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

3. SOCIAL ASSISTIVE ROBOTICS (SAR)
- SAR is the class of robots that provide various types of assistance
to various vulnerable populations primarily through social, rather than
physical interaction.
• POPULATIONS:
• Elderly:
• Post- stroke rehabilitation, Matarić, et al., 2007
• Alzheimer’s disease , Tapus et..al. ,2009
• Hospital delivery robot, Mutlu & Forlizzi ,2008
• Nursing home residents , Wada et.al. , 2004
• Children, mainly for children with autism spectrum disorders
(ASD)
• Scassellati, et al. 2007.
• Robins, et al., 2005.
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

4. Hands off
RAC CP Fun
Body Structure & Functions Activity Participation
Environmental
Factors
Personal
Factors
Health condition (disorder or disease)Therapist
Hands on
Motor Actions
I N T E R N AT I O N A L
C L A S S I F I C AT I O N O F
F U N C T I O N I N G , D I S A B I L I T Y
A N D H E A LT H ( I C F )
F R A M E W O R K , ( W H O , 2 0 0 2 )
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

5. RAC CP Fun
Body Structure & Functions Activity Participation
Environmental
Factors
Personal
Factors
Therapist RAC CP Fun
Health condition (disorder or disease)
Hands on
Conceptual Interference
Environment Taxonomy
Learning Algorithm
Hands off
Human-Robot Interaction
Motor GamesMotor Actions
Adaptation to personality, mood and motor performance
Motivation: feedback, mirroring effect
Team Decomposition
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

6. MOTIVATION AS PART OF A
GAME
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012
Embedded features:
• Play-like activate
• Toy appearance of the robot
• Emotional arousal
• Variety of games
NOT ENOUGH…

7. SUBJECTS
Subject Gender Age (yrs) GMFCS
1 M 5.8 III
2 M 5.9 III
3 M 6.3 I
4 F 5.7 II
5 M 6.2 IV
6 M 5.8 III
7 M 6.1 II
8 M 6.3 III
9 M 4.9 IV
10 M 5.1 II
11 F 5.4 II
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012
All diagnosed as CP

8. SETUP
Operator
Cameras
Staff
~0.8m
~0.5m
~2 m
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012
0.5m
1.2m
0.5m

9. DATA ANALYSIS
• Interaction Level (IL)
• Cognitive Performance (V)
• Motor Performance
3
1
**
F
FSss FWSignECIL
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012
RT
AVE
V
)(1
Coding Performance
0 did not perform
1 attempt to perform - 2nd attempt
2 incomplete performance- 2nd attempt
3 attempt to perform - 1st attempt
4 complete performance- 2nd attempt
5 incomplete performance- 1st attempt
6 complete performance- 1st attempt

10. EXPERIMENT 1:
FIRST MEETING PROCEDURE
• AIM: the robot introduces itself to the children, explains it’s intention,
demonstrates games, explains it’s limitations (ethical issues)
• MOTIVATION: the robots create enjoyable interaction, emotional
arousal, creates personal contact, reduces children’s and staff’s concern
• RESULT: children enjoyed, actively played with robot, participated in the
conversation with the robot , allowed the robot to be in their personal
space
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

11. Procedureflow
Interaction level
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Hello
Introduction
Song
Conversation
Motor game
Robot falls down
Explanation
Parting
0 1 2
Execution
CP
ND

12. • AIM: motor exercises (symmetrical, asymmetrical, and dual tasks)
• MOTIVATION: the robot is personal toy, personal feedback
• RESULTS: high interaction, high performance (better then educational
staff expected), possible correlation
between exercise difficulty and motivation
EXPERIMENT 2:
ONE-TO-ONE MOTOR INVOLVEMENT
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

13. Procedureflow
Interaction level
0 5 10 15 20
Intro
SM
AM
DT
Motor performance
0 2 4 6
CP
ND

14. EXPERIMENT 3 :
“ROBY SAID”
• AIM: collaborative motor game (symmetrical, asymmetrical, and complex
tasks), selective attention
• MOTIVATION: the robot initiates and mediates a social game
• RESULTS: children enjoy, high interaction, improvement in motor
performance and selective attention
• CHALLENGE: variability of children’s reactions and abilities, need of
“social psychology” approach (despair attention, feedback, adaptive game’s
flow)
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

16. EXPERIMENT 4:
”FOUR SEASONS”
• AIM: to explore a possibility to facilitate the development of spatial cognition
(as example of cognitive abilities) of the children
• MOTIVATION: competition between children, experience in operating the
robot, classical music, dancing
• RESULTS: children enjoyed, their cognitive performance were improved
• CHALLENGE: adjustment of the robot’s behavior to the variability of the
physical and mental abilities of the children
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

17. Sketch Picture
IL
V

18. EXPERIMENT 5:
COMPLEX INTERACTION
• AIM: to test a constructive learning approach (using books and
furniture), accompanied with motor and cognitive development
• MOTIVATION: the robot is a “help-seeker”, natural environment
• RESULT: “help-seeker” is efficient, single robot’s can not fit complex
interaction
• CHALLENGE: need for assortment of behaviors driven by the child’s
personality
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

19. VARIABILITY of REACTIONS
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012
E., 4 yrs, Hemiplegia, ADHD, GMFSC I
M., 4 yrs, Spastic diplegia, ADHD, GMFCS II
A., 6 yrs, Hemiplegia, GMFSC III
D., 6 yrs, Spastic syndrome, ADHD, GMFSC I
Fragment of long scenario. Goal: to induce arm rising to maximal range

20. THE SCHEME OF THE RAC CP FUN
MODULES AND DATA FLOW
Low-level Perception
• Kinect: Motion processing
• Robot’s Video:
High color saturation filters
Skin-color filters
Edge detection
Disparity computation
• Robot’s Sensors: Data filtering
Motor module
• Visual-motor skills
• Manipulation skills (reaching/ grasping)
• Expressive skills (bodily/facial/vocalizations)
Attention module
• Attention on a child with fastest/slowest reactions
• Attention on a child defined by physiotherapist
Motivation module
• Positive-negative reinforcement
• Qualitive and quantative feedback
• Empathy and mirroring effect
Behavior module
• Behavior selection
• Decomposition to the set of
operations: body
movements, operational
vocabulary, sounds, emotiona
l expressions
High-level Perception
• Visual:
Scene analysis and segmentation
Face and eye detection
Whole body labeling
Subjects identification
Gaze direction
Emotional Recognition
• Kinect: Extremities movement analysis
• Sensory Data fusion
Adaptation module
• Adjustment to the stage of motor learning
• Mood and current success level
• Personality matching: hyperactive/passive
Information analysis module
• Subject’s motor behavior analysis
• Subject’s cognitive behavior analysis
• Monitoring of the level of interaction strength
• Recognition of subjects attention state
Input
• Robot: Sensors data, including Scene video
• Kinect: Movement tracking
• Physiotherapist: Settings
Personal and Anthropometric data
Functional (pathological) restrictions
Tasks difficulty
Session scenario components
Safety module
• Avoid children in robot’s working space
Databas
e
Self-awareness module
• Error detection/Success measuring
Locomotion, Falling, Manipulation
• Robot localization
Personal Information
Pathology characteristics:
GMFCS, Altered side, Assistive device
Motor functions : Time of sit-stand
initiation, Symmetry of holding arms
Child-Robot Interaction Measurements:
Emotional status, Responsiveness
Environment: Place, # participants
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

21. SUMMARY
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012
Unconstrained interaction
Personal toy
Social mediator
Combined:
competitive, entertaining,
operated by a child
Help-seeker
Strategy for motivation
Assortment
of behaviors
Taskcomplexity
Variabilityofreactions
Need

22. CONCLUSIONS
● RAC CP FUN is a feasible and promising new research
area of social assistive technology with immeasurable
potential
● RAC CP FUN may stimulate the development of new
treatments for a wide variety of diseases and disorders
through effective physiotherapy practice
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

23. RESEARCH GROUP
Dr. Mark BelokopytovDr. Simona Bar-Haim
Bella DavidovGuy Keren
Ronit Aviram
MESHI Jerusalem
Workshop on Motivational Aspects of Robotics in Physical Therapy, IROS 2012

24. IROS 2012
THANK YOU FOR
ATTENTION