1

Communication preferences in a virtual world: An autism perspective

Nigel Newbutt

Bath Spa Universityn.newbutt@bathspa.ac.uk

2

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

3

Autism• But first…. Autism is what?– Spectrum condition– Ranging from very low-functioning (low IQ) to high-functioning

(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

4

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

5

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

6

VRTs and Autism• Strickland et al. (1996)• Virtual Reality

http://www.dotolearn.com/aboutus/research/briefreport.htm

7

VRTs and Autism• Parsons and Mitchell (2002); Parsons et al.

(2004; 2006; 2007), Cobb et al. (2002)• Virtual Environments

8

VRTs and Autism• Fabri and Moore (2004)• Collaborative Virtual Environments

9

VRTs and Autism• Kandalaft et al. (2013)• Virtual Worlds; Social cognition training

10

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

11

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)

12

Classroom

13

Virtual World

14

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.

15

Communication Preferences in a VW

• This improved:

• However, the TDG seemed less concerned:

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)

[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)

16

Communication Preferences in a VWDuring 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)

17

What does this mean/tell us…?• Text-chat was the only and preferred option of

communication• Confidence and willingness to engage with text-

chat• 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)

18

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

19

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)

20

Appropriateness

Angela Stephen Chris Richard Ryan Tony Sophie* Peter*0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Week 7Week 8

Participant name

Num

ber o

f sin

gle

text

chat

com

mun

icatio

ns

21

Appropriateness

Angela Stephen Chris Richard Ryan Tony Sophie Peter0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Inappropriate Communciation

Appropriate Communication

Participant

Perc

enta

ge o

f com

mun

icatio

ns (d

iffer

entia

ted

by ty

pe)

22

What does this mean/tell us…?• Limited data• Limited focus of activities• Notwithstanding:– Links between real-world interactions and in-

world inappropriateness – The same participants demonstrated both– Opens new forms of communication channels– Reports of feeling comfortable communicating in-

world

23

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

24

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)

25

Questions• Thanks for your time and listening• Happy to take questions

– Further details:• www.virtaut.co.uk• n.newbutt@bathspa.ac.uk