There are a bunch of references available on the internet.
Werry & Dautenhahn (2007) showed that an interactive, mobile robot
engages children with autism better than a non-robotic conventional
toy. A physician or physiotherapist may use robotic technology in
order to find out about the nature of a particular medical condition
or impairment, e.g. to find out about the nature of motor impairment
after stroke, and may use an assessment robot to be tested with both
healthy people and stroke patients. Similarly, a psychologist may
study the nature of autism by using robotic artefacts, comparing,e.g.
how children respond to social cues, speech or tactile interaction.
Such artifacts would be tools in the research on the nature of the
disorder or disability, rather than an assistive tool built to assist
the patients — which means it would also have to take into
consideration the patient's individual differences, likes and dislikes
and preferences in the context of using the tool.
This paper describes a User Experience (UX) study on industrial robots
in the context of a semiconductor factory cleanroom. We accompanied
the deployment of a new robotic arm, without a safety fence, over one
and a half years. Within our study, we explored if there is a UX
difference between robots which have been used for more than 10 years
within a safety fence (type A robot) and a newly deployed robot
without fence (type B robot). Further, we investigated if the UX
ratings change over time. The departments of interest were the oven
(type A robots), the etching (type B robot), and the implantation
department (type B robot). To observe experience changes over time, a
UX questionnaire was developed and distributed to the operators at
three defined points in time within these departments. The first
survey was conducted one week after the deployment of robot B (n=23),
the second survey was deployed six months later (n=21), and the third
survey was distributed one and a half years later (n=23). Our results
show an increasing positive UX towards the newly deployed robots with
progressing time, which partly aligns with the UX ratings of the
robots in safety fences. However, this effect seems to fade after one
year. We further found that the UX ratings for all scales for the
established robots were stable at all three points in time
Robots can also teach children with special needs how to play with one
an- other. If a child is touching the robot inappropriately-slapping,
say, instead of stroking-the robot may back away or emit a warning
beep to encourage the child to change his behavior. Then, as the child
begins to master interactive skills, the robot's behavior may become
increasingly unpredictable, preparing the child for dealing with
humans.
Dautenhahn has noticed that autistic children playing with Kaspar may
also spontaneously begin interacting with their teachers. "One
withdrawn boy who never played with other children or his teacher
became very interested in Kaspar's eyes," she says. "He pointed to
Kaspar's eyes, then to his own, and then, smiling, to his teacher's
eyes. This was an invitation to share, and the boy and his teacher
played together."
Children with physical disabilities, too, respond well to robots. In
three schools in Austria, PlayROB gives children with cerebral palsy
and other severe disabilities the chance to play independently.
Controlling the robot with a joystick, buttons, their mouths or even
just head movements, the chil- dren can direct it to build LEGO
structures and do additional activities that let them experience the
creative expression, spatial recognition and accomplishment that other
children get from playing
Other articles worth exploring are given below