Submitted:
08 March 2025
Posted:
10 March 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
Introduction
1.1. Children Perceptions (Negative and Positive) Towards Social Robotics
1.1.1. Positive Attitude Toward Robots
1.1.2. Negative Perceptions of Kids
1.2.3. Children Adaptation Towards Robots
State of Art
Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Selection & Search Query
| Search | Keyword |
|---|---|
| 1 | "Social robots" AND "Emotional development" OR "cognitive development" |
| 2 | "Robot-mediated learning" OR "child- robot interaction" OR "robotics in Education “AND "Cognitive development" |
| 3 | "Robot design" OR "robot behaviour" AND "Cognitive engagement" OR "learning outcome" |
3.1.1. Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria

- Published articles in a peer-reviewed scientific journal between 2018 and 2025.
- Research design that includes pre-test and post-test measurements, whether experimental or non-experimental (without random assignment).
- Quantitative measure of the intervention's impact, sufficient for calculating the effect size.
- Focus on clearly defined research questions related to the influence of social robotics on the cognitive development of children aged 0 to 15.
- Emphasize the robotics-based intervention as the primary explanatory variable affecting the measured outcome, rather than other factors occurring alongside the robotic activity.
- Utilize real robots or robotics kits as the main tools for manipulation.
- Exclude studies that involve children or students in the design, data collection, or testing processes.
3.1.2. Data Extraction
- Age range of kids.
- Type of paper i-e, Experimental, Non-Experimental
- Robot type that was used during experiment.
- Name of robot.
- Findings of research based on their studies.
- The role of robot or interaction that was used during experiment.
3.1.3. Limitations
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Information Structuring
3. Results
4.1. Developmental Stage and Age Cohorts
4.1.1. Growth and Learning
4.1.2. Age Factors
4.1.3. Other Characteristics Affecting Perception
4.1.4. Cultural Factors
5. Discussion
5.1. RQ1. How Can Children's Positive Emotional Development—Like Resilience and Confidence— Be Fostered by Social Robots?
5.2. RQ2. How Children Cognitive Development Can Be Fostered by Early Exposure to Robot Mediated Learning?
5.3. RQ3. What Are the Considerations for Further Design of the Robot's Physical Appearance and Behaviour Influence Children's Cognitive Engagement?
6. Conclusions
References
- T. N. Beran, A. Ramirez-Serrano, R. Kuzyk, M. Fior, and S. Nugent, ‘Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child–robot interaction’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 539–550, Jul. 2011. [CrossRef]
- Ekaterina Pashevich1, ‘Can communication with social robots influence how children develop empathy? Best-evidence synthesis | AI & SOCIETY’. AI & SOCIETY (2022) 37:579–589. [CrossRef]
- L. Malinverni, C. Valero, M. M. Schaper, and I. G. de la Cruz, ‘Educational Robotics as a boundary object: Towards a research agenda’, International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, vol. 29, p. 100305, Sep. 2021. [CrossRef]
- M. Blancas et al., ‘Analyzing children’s expectations from robotic companions in educational settings’, in 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids), Nov. 2017, pp. 749–755. [CrossRef]
- J. P. Boada, B. R. Maestre, and C. T. Genís, ‘The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: A critical literature review’, Technology in Society, vol. 67, p. 101726, Nov. 2021. [CrossRef]
- Rebecca Stower, Natalia Calvo-Barajas, · Ginevra Castellano, and Arvid Kappas, ‘A Meta-analysis on Children’s Trust in Social Robots | International Journal of Social Robotics’. International Journal of Social Robotics (2021) 13:1979–2001. [CrossRef]
- ‘E. A. Björling, K. Thomas, E. J. Rose, and M. Cakmak, ‘Exploring Teens as Robot Operators, Users and Witnesses in the Wild’, Front. Robot. AI, vol. 7, Feb. 2020. [CrossRef]
- H. S. Kang, K. Makimoto, R. Konno, and I. S. Koh, ‘Review of outcome measures in PARO robot intervention studies for dementia care’, Geriatric Nursing, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 207–214, May 2020. [CrossRef]
- Iolanda Leite, Marissa McCoy, Monika Lohani, Daniel Ullman, and Nicole Salomons, ‘Frontiers | Narratives with Robots: The Impact of Interaction Context and Individual Differences on Story Recall and Emotional Understanding’. Front. Robot. AI , 12 July 2017 Sec. Humanoid Robotics Volume 4 - 2017. [CrossRef]
- Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, Alex Barco, Beste Özcan, Jainendra Shukla, ‘An Interdisciplinary Approach to Improving Cognitive Human-Robot Interaction – A Novel Emotion-Based Model’, vol. 290, pp. 195–205.
- C. de Jong, R. Kühne, J. Peter, C. L. V. Straten, and A. Barco, ‘What Do Children Want from a Social Robot? Toward Gratifications Measures for Child-Robot Interaction’, in 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Oct. 2019, pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
- M. Heerink et al., ‘A field study with primary school children on perception of social presence and interactive behavior with a pet robot’, in 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Sep. 2012, pp. 1045–1050. [CrossRef]
- Cerekovic, O. Aran, and D. Gatica-Perez, ‘Rapport with Virtual Agents: What Do Human Social Cues and Personality Explain?’, IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 382–395, Jul. 2017. [CrossRef]
- Z. G. Baker, E. M. Watlington, and C. R. Knee, ‘The role of rapport in satisfying one’s basic psychological needs’, Motiv Emot, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 329–343, Apr. 2020. [CrossRef]
- C. Lutz, M. Schöttler, and C. P. Hoffmann, ‘The privacy implications of social robots: Scoping review and expert interviews’, Mobile Media & Communication, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 412–434, Sep. 2019. [CrossRef]
- S. Naneva, M. Sarda Gou, T. L. Webb, and T. J. Prescott, ‘A Systematic Review of Attitudes, Anxiety, Acceptance, and Trust Towards Social Robots’, Int J of Soc Robotics, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1179–1201, Dec. 2020. [CrossRef]
- S.-E. Chien et al., ‘Age Difference in Perceived Ease of Use, Curiosity, and Implicit Negative Attitude toward Robots’, J. Hum.-Robot Interact., vol. 8, no. 2, p. 9:1-9:19, Jun. 2019. [CrossRef]
- M. Ferraz, A. Câmara, and A. O’Neill, ‘Increasing Children’s Physical Activity Levels Through Biosymtic Robotic Devices’, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, in ACE ’16. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Nov. 2016, pp. 1–14. [CrossRef]
- D. Robert and V. van den Bergh, ‘Children’s Openness to Interacting with a Robot Scale (COIRS)’, in The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Aug. 2014, pp. 930–935. [CrossRef]
- C. de Jong, J. Peter, and R. Kuhne, ‘Children’s Intention to Adopt Social Robots: A Model of its Distal and Proximal Predictors | International Journal of Social Robotics’. International Journal of Social Robotics (2022) 14:875–891. [CrossRef]
- P. T, K. S, and B. M, ‘Social Robotics in Education: State-of-the-Art and Directions | SpringerLink’. Vol 67, pp 689-700.
- C. Breazeal, ‘Social interactions in HRI: the robot view’, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 181–186, May 2004. [CrossRef]
- X. Tang and J. Chu, ‘Inclusive Design: Task Specified Robots for Elderly’, Advances in Education, Humanities and Social Science Research, vol. 1, no. 1, Art. no. 1, May 2022. [CrossRef]
- F. Hegel, C. Muhl, B. Wrede, M. Hielscher-Fastabend, and G. Sagerer, ‘Understanding Social Robots’, in 2009 Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, Feb. 2009, pp. 169–174. [CrossRef]
- H. Mahdi, S. A. Akgun, S. Saleh, and K. Dautenhahn, ‘A survey on the design and evolution of social robots — Past, present and future’, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 156, p. 104193, Oct. 2022. [CrossRef]
- R. Y. Pai, A. Shetty, T. K. Dinesh, A. D. Shetty, and N. Pillai, ‘Effectiveness of social robots as a tutoring and learning companion: a bibliometric analysis’, Cogent Business & Management, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2299075, Dec. 2024. [CrossRef]
- H. J. S. Matthijs and K. Elly, ‘Attitudes towards Social Robots in Education: Enthusiast, Practical, Troubled, Sceptic, and Mindfully Positive’. Robotics 2021, 10(1), 24. [CrossRef]
- Robaczewski, J. Bouchard, K. Bouchard, and S. Gaboury, ‘Socially Assistive Robots: The Specific Case of the NAO’, Int J of Soc Robotics, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 795–831, Jul. 2021. [CrossRef]
- S. E. Gambin, ‘THE BEE-BOT IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING OF MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS’.
- L. J. Wood, A. Zaraki, B. Robins, and K. Dautenhahn, ‘Developing Kaspar: A Humanoid Robot for Children with Autism’, Int J of Soc Robotics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 491–508, Jun. 2021. [CrossRef]
- T. Belpaeme et al., ‘Guidelines for Designing Social Robots as Second Language Tutors’, Int J of Soc Robotics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 325–341, Jun. 2018. [CrossRef]
- Ramachandran, C.-M. Huang, and B. Scassellati, ‘Toward Effective Robot--Child Tutoring: Internal Motivation, Behavioral Intervention, and Learning Outcomes’, ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 2:1-2:23, Feb. 2019. [CrossRef]
- T. Belpaeme , J. Kennedy, and A. Ramachandran, ‘Social robots for education: A review | Science Robotics’. 22 Aug 2018 Vol 3, Issue 21. HTTPS://DOI.ORG/. [CrossRef]
- C. Zaga, M. Lohse, K. P. Truong, and V. Evers, ‘The Effect of a Robot’s Social Character on Children’s Task Engagement: Peer Versus Tutor’, in Social Robotics, A. Tapus, E. André, J.-C. Martin, F. Ferland, and M. Ammi, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 704–713. [CrossRef]
- H. Oinas-Kukkonen and M. Harjumaa, ‘Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features’, CAIS, vol. 24, 2009. [CrossRef]
- Esfandbod et al., ‘Fast mapping in word-learning: A case study on the humanoid social robots’ impacts on Children’s performance’, International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, vol. 38, p. 100614, Dec. 2023. [CrossRef]
- Y. Liu et al., ‘Effects of Robotics Education on Young Children’s Cognitive Development: a Pilot Study with Eye-Tracking’, J Sci Educ Technol, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 295–308, Jun. 2023. [CrossRef]
- S. Sebo, B. Stoll, B. Scassellati, and M. F. Jung, ‘Robots in Groups and Teams: A Literature Review’, Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 4, no. CSCW2, p. 176:1-176:36, Oct. 2020. [CrossRef]
- J. Kennedy, P. Baxter, E. Senft, and T. Belpaeme, ‘Social robot tutoring for child second language learning’, in 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Mar. 2016, pp. 231–238. [CrossRef]
- J. M. Kory-Westlund* and C. Breazeal, ‘Frontiers | A Long-Term Study of Young Children’s Rapport, Social Emulation, and Language Learning With a Peer-Like Robot Playmate in Preschool’. Sec. Human-Robot Interaction Volume 6 - 2019. [CrossRef]
- V. Charisi, E. Gomez, G. Mier, L. Merino, and R. Gomez, ‘Child-Robot Collaborative Problem-Solving and the Importance of Child’s Voluntary Interaction: A Developmental Perspective’, Front. Robot. AI, vol. 7, Feb. 2020. [CrossRef]
- V. Charisi, L. Merino, M. Escobar, F. Caballero, R. Gomez, and E. Gómez, ‘The Effects of Robot Cognitive Reliability and Social Positioning on Child-Robot Team Dynamics’, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2021, pp. 9439–9445. [CrossRef]
- Taheri, A. Meghdari, M. Alemi, and H. R. Pouretemad, ‘Teaching music to children with autism: A social robotics challenge’, Scientia Iranica, vol. 26, no. Special Issue on: Socio-Cognitive Engineering, pp. 40–58, Feb. 2019. [CrossRef]
- K. Y. Fung et al., ‘Exploring the impact of robot interaction on learning engagement: a comparative study of two multi-modal robots’, Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 12, Jan. 2025. [CrossRef]
- D. Ghiglino, F. Floris, De Tommaso, Davide, and K. Kompatsiari, ‘Artificial scaffolding: Augmenting social cognition by means of robot technology -Autism Research. 2023;16:997–1008. [CrossRef]
- N. Hurst, C. Clabaugh, R. Baynes, J. Cohn, D. Mitroff, and S. Scherer, ‘Social and Emotional Skills Training with Embodied Moxie’, Apr. 27, 2020, arXiv: arXiv:2004.12962. arXiv:arXiv:2004.12962. [CrossRef]
- T. Schodde, L. Hoffmann, S. Stange, and S. Kopp, ‘Adapt, Explain, Engage—A Study on How Social Robots Can Scaffold Second-language Learning of Children’, J. Hum.-Robot Interact., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 6:1-6:27, Dec. 2019. [CrossRef]
- M. Mukhasheva, K. Ybyraimzhanov, K. Naubaeva, A. Mamekova, and B. Almukhambetova, ‘The Impact of Educational Robotics on Cognitive Outcomes in Primary Students: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies’, EUROPEAN J ED RES, vol. volume–12–2023, no. volume–12–issue–4–october–2023, pp. 1683–1695, Oct. 2023. [CrossRef]
- G. castelano, De Carolis Berardina, and F. D’Errico, ‘PeppeRecycle: Improving Children’s Attitude Toward Recycling by Playing with a Social Robot | International Journal of Social Robotics’. Volume 13, page 97-111,(2021). Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12369-021-00754-0.
- J. M. Kory-Westlund and C. Breazeal, ‘Exploring the Effects of a Social Robot’s Speech Entrainment and Backstory on Young Children’s Emotion, Rapport, Relationship, and Learning’, Front. Robot. AI, vol. 6, Jul. 2019. [CrossRef]
- V. Bamicha and A. Drigas, ‘ToM & ASD: the Interconnection of Theory of Mind with the Social-emotional, Cognitive Development of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. the Use of ICTs as an Alternative Form of Intervention in ASD’, Technium Social Sciences Journal, vol. 33, pp. 42–72, 2022. [CrossRef]
- J. De Vit, A. Brandse, E. Krahmer, and P. Vogt, ‘Varied Human-Like Gestures for Social Robots | Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction’. pages 359-367, 2020. [CrossRef]
- M. Benvenuti and E. Mazzoni, ‘Enhancing wayfinding in pre-school children through robot and socio-cognitive conflict’, Brit J Educational Tech, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 436–458, Mar. 2020. [CrossRef]
- PopBots : leveraging social robots to aid preschool children’s artificial intelligence education’. june, 2018. Available online: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/122894.
- X. Dong, Hu. Liang, and X. Ding, ‘Enhancing children’s cognitive skills: An experimental study on virtual reality-based gamified educational practices | Education and Information Technologies. [CrossRef]
- S. Ali, T. Moroso, and C. Breazeal, ‘Can Children Learn Creativity from a Social Robot?’, in Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition, San Diego CA USA: ACM, Jun. 2019, pp. 359–368. [CrossRef]
- S. Lemaignan, N. Newbutt, and L. Rice, ‘“It’s Important to Think of Pepper as a Teaching Aid or Resource External to the Classroom”: A Social Robot in a School for Autistic Children | International Journal of Social Robotics’. International Journal of Social Robotics (2024) 16:1083–1104. [CrossRef]
- L. J. Wood, A. Zaraki, B. Robins, and K. Dautenhahn, ‘Developing Kaspar: A Humanoid Robot for Children with Autism’, Int J of Soc Robotics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 491–508, Jun. 2021. [CrossRef]
- S. Lemaignan, N. Newbutt, L. Rice, and J. Daly, ‘“It’s Important to Think of Pepper as a Teaching Aid or Resource External to the Classroom”: A Social Robot in a School for Autistic Children’, Int J of Soc Robotics, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1083–1104, Jun. 2024. [CrossRef]
- Y.-C. Chen, S.-L. Yeh, W. Lin, H.-P. Yueh, and L.-C. Fu, ‘The Effects of Social Presence and Familiarity on Children–Robot Interactions’, Sensors (Basel), vol. 23, no. 9, p. 4231, Apr. 2023. [CrossRef]
- R. Funke et al., ‘A Data Collection of Infants’ Visual, Physical, and Behavioral Reactions to a Small Humanoid Robot’, in 2018 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO), Sep. 2018, pp. 99–104. [CrossRef]
- G. castelano, De Carolis Berardina, and F. D’Errico, ‘PeppeRecycle: Improving Children’s Attitude Toward Recycling by Playing with a Social Robot | International Journal of Social Robotics’. Volume 13, page 97-111,(2021). Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12369-021-00754-0.
- M. Judith, ‘Child and adolescent development for educators | CiNii Research’., 2002 ISBN 0072322357.
- J. Piaget and M. Pie, ‘The Psychology of Intelligence | D.E Berlyne, Jean Piaget, Malcolm Pie’.,pages 216, 2003. [CrossRef]
- D. G. Norton, ‘Diversity, Early Socialization, and Temporal Development: The Dual Perspective Revisited | Social Work | Oxford Academic’, 38(1), 82–90. 1993.
- R. W. Rieber, The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: The History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
- ‘D. B. El’konin, ‘TOWARD THE PROBLEM OF STAGES IN THE MENTAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHILD |’. 1972. [CrossRef]
- C. Filippini and A. Merla, ‘Systematic Review of Affective Computing Techniques for Infant Robot Interaction | International Journal of Social Robotics’. International Journal of Social Robotics (2023) 15:393–409. [CrossRef]
- M. Ale, M. Sturdee, and E. Rubegni, ‘A systematic survey on embodied cognition: 11 years of research in child–computer interaction’, International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, vol. 33, p. 100478, Sep. 2022. [CrossRef]
- T. Mattia., ‘The Handbook of Developmentally Appropriate Toys - ProQuest’. Vol. 15, Iss. 1, (2023): 112-114.
- V. Lim and R. Maki, ‘Social Robots on a Global Stage: Establishing a Role for Culture During Human–Robot Interaction | International Journal of Social Robotics’. International Journal of Social Robotics (2021) 13:1307–1333. [CrossRef]
- H. Powell and J. Michael, ‘Feeling committed to a robot: why, what, when and how?’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 374, no. 1771, p. 20180039, Mar. 2019. [CrossRef]
- M. de Haas, P. Vogt, and E. Krahmer, ‘When Preschoolers Interact with an Educational Robot, Does Robot Feedback Influence Engagement?’, Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, vol. 5, no. 12, Art. no. 12, Dec. 2021. [CrossRef]
- C. T. Valadão et al., ‘Analysis of the use of a robot to improve social skills in children with autism spectrum disorder’, Res. Biomed. Eng., vol. 32, pp. 161–175, Jun. 2016. [CrossRef]
- C. Filippini and A. Merla, ‘Systematic Review of Affective Computing Techniques for Infant Robot Interaction | International Journal of Social Robotics’. International Journal of Social Robotics (2023) 15:393–409. [CrossRef]
- S. Marchesi, D. Ghiglino, F. Ciardo, J. Perez-Osorio, E. Baykara, and A. Wykowska, ‘Do We Adopt the Intentional Stance Toward Humanoid Robots?’, Front. Psychol., vol. 10, Mar. 2019. [CrossRef]
- B. Rauchbauer, B. Nazarian, M. Bourhis, M. Ochs, L. Prévot, and T. Chaminade, ‘Brain activity during reciprocal social interaction investigated using conversational robots as control condition’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 374, no. 1771, p. 20180033, Mar. 2019. [CrossRef]
- H. Anna, H. Ruud ‘Social Cognition in the Age of Human–Robot Interaction: Trends in Neurosciences’. Volume 43, Issue 6P373-384June 2020.
- S. krystin, S. Virginia, ‘Can a robot teach me that? Children’s ability to imitate robots - ScienceDirect’. Volume 203, March 2021. [CrossRef]
| Ref Findings Age | Type/Name of Robot |
Total Participants |
Role | Methodology | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [43] | Cognitive skills/Teach music basics and enhance social | 6 | NAO | 4 | Main Interaction | Experimental | |
| [44] | Enhance learning outcomes/engagement | 8-9 | Kebbi/Minibo | 30/22 | Main Interaction/in presence of researcher | Experimental/Questionnaire | |
| [45] | Social Cognition | 7-10 | COZMO/Icub | 23/22 | Interaction conducted in presence of researcher | Experimental | |
| [46] | Cognitive Behavior Therapy | 5-10 | MOXIE | 12 | Interaction conducted in presence of researcher | Blend of Both | |
| [47] | Robot with scafolding maping enhance learning | 4-7 | NAO V5 | 40 | Main Interaction | Experimental | |
| [48] | Robotic activities enhance more cogntive skills in early schoolers than in later grades | 5-8 | BeeBot, Crab, Lego, mBot | 567 | N/A | Meta-Analysis | |
| [49] | Achieved user’s cognitive and affective dimensions towards ecological sustainability | 7-9 | Pepper | 51 | Interaction was conducted in presence of researcher | Experimental | |
| [50] | Improvement in perception of relationship & increase engagement | 3-8 | Tega | 95 | Main Interaction | Experimental | |
| [51] | Children with ASD have inadequate Mind Theory development, which is linked to deficiencies in their social, cognitive, and metacognitive processes. | 3-6 | Different applications, robots, serious games discussed | N/A | N/A | Study | |
| [52] | Twofold study was presented i-e, conceptual study & enhancement of cognition using human like gestures | 4-6 | NAO | 94 | Pre & posttest were conducted by researcher | Experimental | |
| [53] | Wayfinding skills were enhanced by engagaing kids in socio-cognitive robots | 5 | Mecwilly, Bluebot | 156 | Pre & posttest were conducted by researcher | Experimental | |
| [54] | Develop learning skills using AI based technology | 4-7 | PopBots | 80 | Main Interaction | Qualitative & Quantitative Study | |
| [55] | Enhancing Cognitive Skills |
7-11 | VR Game (The Cow & ThePitcher) |
50 | Main Interaction | Experimental | |
| [56] | Learning Creativity | 6-10 | JIBO | 51 | |||
| Main interaction with assistance of teachers | Experimental | ||||||
| [57] | Cognitive skills/Improve learning in autistic children | 5-8 | Pepper | 145 | Main Interaction | Experimental | |
| Theory | 0-1y | 1-3y | 3-6y | 6-12y | 12-18y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Piaget Cognitive Development Theory[64] | Sensory motor stage | Sensory motor stage | Preoperational stage | Concrete operational | Formal operational |
| Erikson psychosocial Theory[65] | Confidence | Self-governance | Ambition | Perseverance | Individuality |
| Vygotsky’s Mental Function Theory[66] | Mindfulness | Cognition | Retention | Factual thinking | Theoretical thinking |
| Elkonin’s Theory of Dominant (Leading) Activity[67] | Strong emotional connection with the adult | Object Manipulation | Enactment | Academic learning | Strong personal ties within the peer group |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).