Device Developed To Help Socially Challenged

An anonymous reader writes "A device from MIT Media Labs that can pick up on people's emotions is being developed to help people with autism relate to those around them. It will alert its autistic user if the person they are talking to starts showing signs of getting bored or annoyed." From the article: "The 'emotional social intelligence prosthetic' device, which El Kaliouby is constructing along with MIT colleagues Rosalind Picard and Alea Teeters, consists of a camera small enough to be pinned to the side of a pair of glasses, connected to a hand-held computer running image recognition software plus software that can read the emotions these images show. If the wearer seems to be failing to engage his or her listener, the software makes the hand-held computer vibrate."

Comments

As one who has Asperger's,

[Odocoileus]

It might be nice to know when I am losing someone's interest, but, as an Aspie, I really don't have much to say to NT's anyway. I mean if I could hold conversations that interest a NT I wouldn't need the device in the first place. The reality, however, is that conversations that seem to intrigue NT's hold no interest for me. And for some reason I do not get, NT's do not like to talk about the same couple of topics incessantly. I have learned to do the obligatory greetings, but they are best kept short. Anything else is either about business, which has a finite set of interactions (I am fine within my knowledge base), or involves friends that have similar interests. I know some aspies want better communications with the NT world, but knowing when the person is bored would, at least for me, be worse because I still wouldn't know what words to speak to make it better. I guess in the long run maybe, after performing some statistical analysis concerning what words make a person bored. But then again, I pretty much already know that people do not want to talk about scifi or computers or world domination, so it is back to square one.

Re:So Simple?

[gstoddart]

I'll take a stab at this ...

For girls you are seeing across the room: She plays with her hair, licks her lips, smiles at you, will make eye contact with you.

Can you accurately identify when she is looking at you or someone else? Do you think all such such signals are as overt as licking the lips? The signals can be a lot more muted and ambiguous, so it can be in a gray area where you can miss something subtle -- or hope to see something which isn't there. If she is NOT currently looking at you is that a summary rejection since all interested people are looking? Nor everyone is likely to have contact initiated based on their looks; you as like as not could go completely unnoticed.

For girls you are interacting with: You squeeze her hand and she squeezes back, you ask her a question and she asks you the question back, you touch her arm and she doesn't flinch or move away, she compliments you on anything, you look like you are going to go somewhere and she asks if she can come, she laughs at your jokes, you walk away and she is waiting for you when you return, she is the one to initiate conversation with you, etc.

But, you've put the cart before the horse. If you're already at the hand-squeezing stage, you're probably in posession of a few non-ambiguous signals. You also wouldn't use body contact to define some of the earlier stages of human interaction -- it could be completely inappropriate, and you'll seem a bigger dork. Have you tacitly been granted permission to be that close? Or are you just a bungling goon who wants to know if you touch her, she'll flinch?

I can be socially awkward. I find it difficult to engage in social contact with new people. I can't imagine someone with a 'real' disorder being given nice codified things like you've done and be expected to apply them. Because they are, after all, subjective and hit-and-miss in terms of their predictive value.

Even with my own 'plain old' (*) social awkwardness/geekiness, I don't think I could apply some of your cues -- at least not in the grossly simplified way you put them. There is just too much ambiguity in interpreting the responses from people, and I can't often tell where in that range something might lie.

(*) I'm neither Autistic, nor do I have Asberger's -- but like most human behaviour, I believe it's on a continuum, and I might have some of those characteristics without actually having the affliction per se.