Explicating Theory: The Effect of Robotic Mobility Experience on Infant Motivation to Move

PURPOSE: Developments in dynamic systems theory (Thelen, 2005) highlight the importance of infant motivation as a driver for development and emphasize the role of action in motor and cognitive development. Thelen (2005) described a motivational cascade in early development in which successful motor experiences in the infants’ world fuels their motivation to develop new behaviors. Despite the theoretical importance of motivation as a force for developmental change, few researchers have attempted to objectively examine the relationship between motivation and movement. Atun-Einy and colleagues (2013) presented research that supports the concept of a developmental cascade and argued that motivation to move is reciprocally related to motor development. The current study sought to test theory through an experimental design that examined the effect of mobility experience on infant motivation to move.

METHOD: Precrawling, typically developing infants aged 5 mo (N = 42) were randomly assigned to a locomotor or nonlocomotor condition. Infants participated in 12 16-min interactive play sessions over 2 mo. Protocols for infants in the locomotor and nonlocomotor conditions were similar; however, infants in the locomotor condition had the opportunity to navigate the environment using the WeeBot, a robotic mobility device (developed at Ithaca College), during play, whereas nonlocomotor infants remained stationary. The WeeBot allows infants to control their motion by leaning in the direction of desired movement (Stansfield et al., 2017). We hypothesized that infants who developed independent locomotion using the WeeBot would demonstrate greater increases in motivation to move than control infants over the course of the study.

Motivation to move was assessed before infants began and after they completed the 12 play sessions. Two measures were used: (1) researcher observations of motivation to move (RoMTM), using a modification of an ordinal coding system developed by Atun-Einy et al. (2013), and (2) the Infant Motivation to Move Questionnaire (IMMQ; Doralp & Bartlett, 2014), completed by parents. Infant development was assessed using a norm-referenced scale. Increases in scores from pretest to posttest were calculated for each measure and compared using Mann–Whitney U test for the RoMTM and independent t test for the IMMQ. We excluded eight infants from the analysis who achieved independent mobility by crawling or creeping before the end of their participation in the study.

RESULTS: As hypothesized, infants in the locomotor condition demonstrated greater increases in RoMTM scores (M rank = 18.22) than infants in the nonlocomotor condition (M rank = 11.42; U = 56, p = .04, effect size r = .28). No significant difference was found between locomotor infants (M = 14.78, SD = 8.09) and nonlocomotor infants (M = 8.2, SD = 6.76) in parent responses on the IMMQ (t = 1.62, p = .136); however, the effect size was large (r = .46).

CONCLUSION: Preliminary results of this study suggest that independent locomotion using a robotic mobility device may have increased infants’ motivation to move as observed by researchers. These findings are in agreement with the idea of a motivational cascade proposed by Thelen (2005) and Atun-Einy et al. (2013). Additionally, these findings add support to calls from researchers and clinicians to provide early powered mobility to infants with motor impairment to support early motivation to explore the physical and social world. Building opportunities for active exploration may serve as a means to minimize secondary disability in infants with compromised motor development.

References

Atun-Einy, O., Berger, S. E., & Scher, A. (2013). Assessing motivation to move and its relationship to motor development in infancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 36, 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.03.006

Doralp, S., & Bartlett, D. (2014). Infant Movement Motivation Questionnaire: Development of a measure evaluating infant characteristics relating to motor development in the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 37, 326–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2016.1262479

Stansfield, S., Dennis, C., Altman, R., Smith, J., & Larin, H. (2018). A comparison of the efficacy of weight-shift vs. joystick control of a robotic mobility device by infants ages 5 to 10 months. Assistive Technology, 30, 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2016.1262479

Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15, 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-012-0403-4