What was that you  said?: The  preferences and  appropriateness of  communication in a  virtual world by  young people with autism
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

What was that you said?: The preferences and appropriateness of communication in a virtual world by young people with autism



What was that you said?: The preferences and appropriateness of communication in a virtual world by young people with autism by Nigel Newbutt

What was that you said?: The preferences and appropriateness of communication in a virtual world by young people with autism by Nigel Newbutt



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 2

https://twitter.com 2


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

What was that you  said?: The  preferences and  appropriateness of  communication in a  virtual world by  young people with autism What was that you said?: The preferences and appropriateness of communication in a virtual world by young people with autism Presentation Transcript

  • Communication preferences in a virtual world: An autism perspective Nigel Newbutt Bath Spa University n.newbutt@bathspa.ac.uk 1
  • Summary • Report on a project examining the preferences and appropriateness of communicating in a VW – Brief overview of virtual reality technologies (VRTs) for people with autism (ASCs) – Overview of the study; context – Look at some data – Consider the data; what is it telling us 2
  • Autism • But first…. Autism is what? – Spectrum condition – Ranging from very low-functioning (low IQ) to highfunctioning (Asperger’s; lacks cognitive development) – Either way, difficulties persist in areas key to: • Social skills • Social communication • Repetitive behaviours/obsessions – Compulsive, stereotyped, sameness, self-injury – Can affect up to 1:54 (in some parts of the world) and more broadly 1:100 – About 50% of people with autism fail to develop natural language/speech 3
  • Computers and Autism • Computers have been identified by researchers, parents, people with autism and teachers as a useful aid – – – – – – Systematic Simple Limits the need for face-2-face Predictable Reduced anxiety Bespoke communication; i.e. slower • In other words they help (in some ways) to compensate for difficulties people with autism can experience 4
  • VRTs and Autism • One aspect of technology and computers that have been shown to help are VRTs – Including; virtual reality, virtual environments, virtual worlds, etc… • • • • Make mistakes without real-life consequences Learning social skills Developing confidence Real-world generalisation 5
  • VRTs and Autism • Strickland et al. (1996) • Virtual Reality http://www.dotolearn.com/aboutus/research/briefreport.htm 6
  • VRTs and Autism • Parsons and Mitchell (2002); Parsons et al. (2004; 2006; 2007), Cobb et al. (2002) • Virtual Environments 7
  • VRTs and Autism • Fabri and Moore (2004) • Collaborative Virtual Environments 8
  • VRTs and Autism • Kandalaft et al. (2013) • Virtual Worlds; Social cognition training 9
  • VRTs and Autism • However…. • Very few studies (if any) have considered either avatar customisation, communication preferences OR communication appropriateness • The overarching aims of my study were to investigate these themes further • I will present some data from the communication preferences theme 10
  • Communication Preferences in a VW • Used Second Life ® • Developed a private Island, designed in-part with the participants • ASC group all diagnosed with autism (n=8) • Specialist school • Ages: 15 and 16 (50:50) • Standard layout; afforded two rooms to split the groups (ensure in-world communication) 11
  • Classroom 12
  • Virtual World 13
  • Communication Preferences in a VW • Tentative use of text-chat, initially: *…+ However, once in the café, all students were able to communicate basically (through text chat). *…+ In this second session a few of the students interacted very well (using text chat). They [Angela and Tony] eventually sat next to one another (by the bowling alley) and started to use the text chat, albeit very briefly *…+ (Observation Report; Friday, 17th June 2011) [Stephen and Peter] both struggled to find their starting locations, as did Chris. However they did get there eventually and then were able to introduce themselves to their classmate/s. This was achieved through basic text chat. A simple “Hi” or “Hello”. Nothing much more. 14
  • Communication Preferences in a VW • This improved: The text chat was used extensively during the session – every one of the participants used this form of communication at one point or another. (Observation Report 5; Tuesday, 28th June 2011) • However, the TDG seemed less concerned: [The TDG] used the communication channels: text chat and gestures. These were used to … suggest how they were feeling and what they wanted to say. (Observation Report TDG; Monday, 6th June 2011) 15
  • Communication Preferences in a VW During this task, as always Tony and Angela got on well and communicated using the text chat in Second Life. All students able and willing to use text chat – and even use it to initiate conversation (Stephen, especially). (Observation Report 6; Friday, 8th July 2011) Tony and Angela hung out around the swimming pool area at which point Angela was text chatting to Tony. Good level of initiation from many of the participants – good ability to walk up to a peer and initiate some conversation (using text chat). Great use of text chat – gets better every week (building confidence). (Observation Report 8; Wednesday, 20th July 2011) 16
  • What does this mean/tell us…? • Text-chat was the only and preferred option of communication • Confidence and willingness to engage with textchat • Unlike CMC, a VW (and presence of an avatar) might compound communication (Benford, 2007) • Initial communication appeared problematic • Communication increased over time, as familiarity increased • In-world facilitation important (ref: teacher role) 17
  • What does this mean/tell us…? • Prompts still required • ASC participants reported feeling “comfortable” and happy to widen their social group (in-world) to other “friends” or “parents” • Appropriateness of communication 18
  • What does this mean/tell us…? The conversations were coded into the following “interaction” categories (Varughese, 2011; Hadwin et al., 1997): • Visual modality (enters conversation already initiated between people) (vmd) • Perspective-taking (considers others’ likes/dislikes; understands effect on others; acknowledges comments of others) (pst) • Maintaining social interaction (turn-taking; organised conversation; navigating misunderstandings) (msi) • Initiating social interaction (greets others; asks for help; responds to comments) (isc) • Inappropriate comments (iac) • Developing humour (experiments; understands literal; understand laughter) (dhr) • A perseverative category: if responses were echolalic or repetitive (Hadwin et al., 1997) (ech) • N/A: if the interaction was unclear, or could not be categorised (Hadwin et al., 1997) 19
  • Appropriateness 90 Number of single text chat communications 80 70 60 50 Week 7 40 Week 8 30 20 10 0 Angela Stephen Chris Richard Ryan Tony Sophie* Peter* Participant name 20
  • Appropriateness Percentage of communications (differentiated by type) 100% 90% 80% 70% Inappropriate Communciation 60% 50% Appropriate Communication 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Angela Stephen Chris Richard Ryan Tony Sophie Peter Participant 21
  • What does this mean/tell us…? • Limited data • Limited focus of activities • Notwithstanding: – Links between real-world interactions and inworld inappropriateness – The same participants demonstrated both – Opens new forms of communication channels – Reports of feeling comfortable communicating inworld 22
  • Conclusions • Much more work to be conducted in this evolving and developing area of research • Reasons to remain positive about the role VRTs can play in schools, homes and other places to support people with autism • Avatar customisation and communication preferences should be placed at the centre of this endeavour 23
  • Limitations • Small, specific study • Specialist school • Limited time-scale • Future work should: – – – – – Consider larger samples Mixed-methods of data collection/analysis Longer time-frame (longitudinal) Embedding into educational settings Evidence-based focused (school outcomes) 24
  • Questions • Thanks for your time and listening • Happy to take questions – Further details: • www.virtaut.co.uk • n.newbutt@bathspa.ac.uk 25