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

So Simple?

[JDSalinger]

According to TFA, autistic people cannot discern or interpret a bored look on someone's face, but can realize that feeling a vibration in their hand means that someone is bored. Using a camera (to detect boredom) means that the autistic person is looking at the person he is speaking to. It's interesting that a human could receive image data and be unable to remember what it means, but receive touch data and be able to remember its meaning. If this interaction is correct, then a big high five to the geniuses that found the vibration communication channel into autistic minds. Of course if this is not the case, how will a vibrator help? This sounds like an unlikely solution to me, but I have not studied autism. Perhaps, the importance of this study is not that it will actually help autistic people, but that our face recognition capabilities are getting to the point of being useable in today's society. -C

Re:So Simple?

[hackwrench]

I have Asperger's, similar to Autism. Show me a picture of a bored person. Tell me the person is bored. If you were to ask me what features would indicate to me that person is bord, I'd be hard press to tell you
Take the picture away. Show me videos of people and then ask me:
1. Which of those people have elements that are similar to the bored person.
I'd be hard pressed to answer that as well.

Re:So Simple?

[MobyDisk]

It's interesting that a human could receive image data and be unable to remember what it means, but receive touch data and be able to remember its meaning.

You misunderstand autism. This has nothing to do with memory. Autistic people do not have the facial expression recognition algorithms that most humans have. So someone has implemented such an algorithm on a computer, and then the computer tells the autistic person what the expression means.

If this interaction is correct, then a big high five to the geniuses that found the vibration communication channel into autistic minds. Of course if this is not the case, how will a vibrator help?

The problem was no how to communicate with autistic minds. The vibration is irrelevant. This would work fine with a light, a sound, or a big glowing sign that says "shut up dummy, you are boring them to death!" The point is that the input is unambiguous. Unfortunately, facial expressions are very ambiguous.

Re:So Simple?

[Billosaur]

You misunderstand autism. This has nothing to do with memory. Autistic people do not have the facial expression recognition algorithms that most humans have. So someone has implemented such an algorithm on a computer, and then the computer tells the autistic person what the expression means.

I worked with the autistic population for about 7 years. I think it has not been established that autistic people lack facial expression recognition algorithms. From what I've seen, they cannot interpret what they see, lacking the ability to integrate facial expressions of others with their own feelings, and use that to create a picture of what someone else is feeling. The autistic individual tends to treat everything as an object, and they can recognize form and substance, but not emotionality. However, they can learn it, given enough conditioning and reinforcement, albeit it is very artificial and prone to error if certain situations occur which were not anticipated. This device may work as an excellent training tool for those who can use it properly, but it won't solve the problem in the long run.

Re:So Simple?

[pHatidic]

I used to have this problem, but then I just realized I didn't know what to look for. Like me, I'd guess you just have a bad case of Slashdotters. Here are a few signs for starters:

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.

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.

Re:So Simple?

[hey!]

The issue is not perception or memory, but of highly specific information processing capabilities that bridge high level geometric perceptions (shapes and so forth) and awareness of the mental state of others. It's rather like having a face-recognition system that detects Osama going through airport security and rings an alarm.

If you want to know what this is like, get married. In most cases, wives have a mechanism that alerts them to things like specks of dirt on the floor that their husbands lack. The husband can see it, it just doesn't enter his consciousness.

Re:So Simple?

[gEvil (beta)]

*yawn*

Re:So Simple?

[gurutc]

I also have Aspergers, and one of the most painful things about it is that people can't believe it's possible to miss simple and seemingly impossibly obvious clues.

It's sad that folks don't know enough, yet still comment, to believe that something this simple would be a huge help.

I want one.

Re:So Simple?

[Autistic]

I agree, but I think there is a little more to it.

I certainly do not see as much from peoples faces as other people can. But I can see a little. I can see stronger emotions than boredom.

But the other side is knowing that some type of response is necessary and what that response should be. I may see that someone is angry or is sad, but I don't necessarily know what to do about it. I don't know whether to try to approach and help or stand back and wait. Often times, the hesitation of response is seen as lack of understanding.

So I get accused of not detecting emotion a lot more than is the case. I can see it, but I don't necessarily respond to it in a way that would be expected. I'll do the wrong thing, or if I know that has failed too many times before, I'll do nothing at all.

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.

Socially Challenged?

[robyannetta]

"Socially challenged"? You mean WoW players?

Help For The Socially Challenged...

[__aaclcg7560]

It's about time someone tried to help the typical Slashdotter stuck in his parent's basement. :P

Slashdot? Socially Challanged?

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

For once, this really IS "news for nerds!"

- Crow T. Trollbot

Boredom detector

[PainBot]

Hopefully I can get one for my boss

My boss is socially challenged

[Timesprout]

So we have special key words we use so he knows when I am becoming bored or angry.

He will say something like

"We need to achieve synergy across our departmental endeavour so we can proactively engage any challenges the business may face"

I will then respond

"You are a fucking wanker"

Nice, but...

[SirBruce]

Hell, I'd like to get one of these devices for myself. But I have a feeling it would generate way too many false positives, or perhaps more importantly, inconsequential positives. The are times when people are bored, but they're trying to be polite and conversational, and pressuring them to make them more interested in what you're saying isn't going to help. Also, although this device may help an autistic person know the other person isn't engaged, do they even know what to do in order to facilitate engagement?

Bruce

This might make someone socially challenged

[ma11achy]

Attaching a small camera to the side of someone's glasses isn't
going to bode well for someone who is already socially challenged...

sweet jesus, it's an emotional clippy!

[smellsofbikes]

"I see you are talking to someone who is trying to be friendly. What would you like to do now?
* gently brush the person off?
* actively engage the person
* seduce the person?"

Device Developed To Help Socially Challenged

[Peter Trepan]

Experts claim the "Microcomputer" will enable sufferers to hold down meaningful jobs while avoiding painful human interaction.

What?

[Monoliath]

I'd like to see some statistics on the accuracy of this device.

Sounds like a horrible idea, the subject matter is so incredibly subjective, and human emotions are so incredibly fickle, laced with an infinite and exponential number of variables that determine what anything 'means' from someone, to someone else.

Plus, does this help the autistic person learn more about people, or make them more dependent upon a machine?

In my mind, something like this only worsens autism because it prevents the individual from having to 'learn how to understand alien stimuli' by interpreting it for them.

I use to baby sit / care for one of my friends little brother, he was diagnosed with severe autism at an early age. Watching him grow older, in my eyes, he learned how to understand new things on his own (just sometimes it took a little longer than it does for most kids his age), like how the rest of us learn things (cause & effect / trial and error) it's not impossible for autistic individuals to perceive and comprehend this kind of stimuli, they just receive it on a different wavelength than we do, and in turn process it in a different manner.

A device like this isn't going to 'teach' anyone anything, it's simply a crutch that IMHO, will stifle development and learning.

As a side note, to me autism is a type of genius, that we just don't know how to comprehend as a society, this kid could do some of the most AMAZING things with number letter combinations / geometrical shapes I've ever seen.

There's a solution to that!

[StefanJ]

Make the device look like a little anthropomorphic cricket that sits on the user's shoulder. Program it to whisper helpful hints:

"From the way they're starting to nod off, I suspect you may have talked for a little too long about your D&D character. Maybe you should stop."

"I could be wrong, but this guy doesn't look very interested in how parking meters are a form of statist Piracy. Maybe you should stop talking and let him finish filling out that ticket."

"From the way she's wrinkling her nose, I suspect she thinks you smell like cat pee. Maybe you should politely back out now and think about taking a shower."

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.

Not About Memory

[neoshroom]

It's interesting that a human could receive image data and be unable to remember what it means, but receive touch data and be able to remember its meaning.

The issue isn't memory, its recognition. Those suffering from autism may not be able to connect to the people around them on a more emotional level, however vibration like from a ringtone is a que to stop doing whatever it is you are doing. It makes perfect sense that someone could not recognize the emotional state of another, but could easily recognize the vibration of a mobile device.

You are exactly right

[gurutc]

The only way to function with Aspergers is to consciouly learn to read expressions. It is a power tool if you choose to use it that way. But it is the dark side because it keeps you from having real interaction and backfires completely when you tire. And it is a hell of a lot of work. Aspergers sucks

Autism, Other Minds, and Religion

[Pfhorrest]

The autistic individual tends to treat everything as an object, and they can recognize form and substance, but not emotionality. However, they can learn it, given enough conditioning and reinforcement, albeit it is very artificial and prone to error if certain situations occur which were not anticipated.

As someone who is naturally very autistic but has learned to understand the neurotypical mindset, I can tell you that this is dead-on.

The big difference between a neurotypical and an autistic mindset is that autistics see everything literally, as it is, and do not like to jump to conclusions based on insufficient data. (Though we are often very good at pattern recognition and educated guessing, we recognize that these are guesses and don't mistake them for facts). This quickly gives rise to the typical 'defining characteristic' of an autistic personality in not recognizing others' emotional states, because *there is no direct evidence that people other than the observer feel anything*. An individual's only experience of "inner experiences" is their own, and it is by definition impossible to experience another's inner experiences. To the procedurally-oriented autistic mind, this leads to the conclusion that there's no reason to suspect that such "other people's inner experiences" exist. It's an alien concept to the autistic.

To the neurotypical, certain behaviors exhibited by other people resemble their own behaviors which are triggered, it seems, by "emotions" or "inner experiences", and so the neurotypical jumps to the conclusion that other people have such inner experiences - that there is some "self" or "I" or "ego" or "soul" that is feeling and thinking in there, and not just a bunch of matter that behaves in certain complex ways. I believe this also explains why severely neurotypical people are so prone to religious beliefs in God or gods - if you're already making the jump to ascribe agency (a necessarily undetectable quality) to certain objects we call "people", why not ascribe such agency to other objects or phenomena, or the universe as a whole?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing to do. In fact it's something that borderline autistic cases like your typical geek are often very comfortable with - the anthropomorphization of computer programs that don't "like" each other, or which "fight" over certain resources, or which "talk" to one another. Geeks understand that these aren't literally true descriptions, inasmuch as we are not ascribing inner experience to these programs, but they are very useful, convenient, and accurate shorthand for describing their behaviors. It doesn't take much to realize that talk of other people's thoughts and feelings and inner experiences is really just the same sort of short hand, and that to any given person's honest and literal perspective, all other people really *are* just objects. (Which is not to say that they should be treated unethically or that there is no basis for ethics, but that's a whole other can of worms there).

And it doesn't take a whole lot more to go ahead and extend this shorthand to other complex systems, or even the universe as a whole; and from that comes a sort of pantheistic view of God. To talk of "God" is just to ascribe agency to the whole universe, a thinking feeling intelligence "behind" it all, the same way that we can ascribe agency to other people. Both of these cases are equally valid or invalid. They're invalid in that neither one is literally true, inasmuch as it's fundamentally impossible to ever have evidence that they are true, and so we have no real reason to ever think that they are true. But they are both valid, inasmuch as the ascription of agency to other people, and understanding the nature of those "agents", is useful for modelling interactions between people (including yourself) which should ultimately be of benefit to the individual using this model; and likewise, the ascription of agency to the universe and the understanding its nature (even in personified terms) p