Human Response to Humanoid Robot That Responds to Social Touch

Abstract

Communication robots have been introduced in nursing care, education, and the hospitality sector. In the future, robots will be increasingly integrated into human society, with more opportunities to interact closely with humans. Therefore, investigating the symbiosis between humans and robots is critical. Touch, including actions, such as shaking hands, holding hands, and touching shoulders are common in most societies. These actions are called the social touch and are common modes of communication. Social touch not only conveys emotions and intentions but also mental and physical effects. Touch considerably influences social relationships: for example, by creating positive impressions and enabling the fulfillment of requests. Since the development of communication robots and other robots capable of physical contact, touch communication between humans and robots has been extensively studied. Although studies have revealed that touching a robot positively influences the impression regarding the robot and induces a relaxed feeling, negative perceptions related to trust on the robot have been reported. Thus, touch interactions between humans and robots are yet to be fully understood. Studies have focused on the effects of touch, such as touching the robot or being touched by the robot. Although interactions with robots that respond to touch, such as hugging behavior, have been studied, few studies have examined the psychological effects of robot responses to other types of touch such as hitting, stroking, and grasping. In this study, a humanoid robot was used to investigate how the reactive behavior exhibited by the robot in response to touch by a participant affects the degree of favorability and intellectual impression toward the robot as well as the sense of accomplishment regarding communication. Participants exhibited high favorability, feeling of relief, and willingness to continue the interaction with robots that exhibited appropriate reactions to the touch of participants. Participants exhibited a positive impression when they decided the touch gesture of the robot rather than when instructed on how to touch it. The results of this study can provide guidelines for improving the design and utilization of robots, such as therapeutic robots, that work alongside humans.

Human Factors Considerations for Quantifiable Human States in Physical Human–Robot Interaction: A Literature Review

“…These subcategories are based on the specific characteristics of the studies in each category, thereby addressing RQ1. Includes studies that involve physical touch between the robot and the human with the intention of communicating a psychological state, such as social touch [48], or for the purpose of exploration or curiosity, as in [49].…”

“…Many of the studies examined in the context of inconsistent contact were also included in the context of non-functional contact, such as studies that have investigated the NAO robot's reactive behavior in response to social touch, including one conducted by [48]. Another study, by [50], compared the instrumental and affective touch of the NAO robot to that of a Stretch robot in a caregiving scenario.…”

“…During the analysis of the results, we observed that several studies evaluated two human factor types simultaneously within the same experiment. Notably, the highest number of studies focused on the evaluation of belief and affect, including [38,48,54,64,66,68,76,95,96,118,141]. Following this, several studies explored the relationship between cognitive ergonomics and belief, such as [19,27,37,38,54,63,95,118,124].…”

“…The analysis identified 83 papers in the impact category and 32 studies in the quantification category. Some studies validated their proposed quantification approaches by manipulating the robot parameters and observing their impact on the human state, including studies by [38,48,68,104,[110][111][112]119,120,122,124,125,128,135,136,140]. As a result, these studies were also included in the impact category, which contained more studies than the quantification category.…”