Touching a Mechanical Body: Tactile Contact With Body Parts of a Humanoid Robot Is Physiologically Arousing

Abstract

A large literature describes the use of robots' physical bodies to support communication with people. Touch is a natural channel for physical interaction, yet it is not understood how principles of interpersonal touch might carry over to a robot. Exploring how interpersonal rules surrounding body accessibility and touch apply to a robot is critical toward understanding the extent to which people treat the act of touching body regions as a sign of closeness-even if the body belongs to a robotand is important to the field of humanoid social robotics. Thirty-one students participated in an interactive anatomy lesson with a small, humanoid robot. Participants either touched or pointed to an anatomical region of the robot in each of 26 trials while their skin conductance response was measured. Touching less accessible regions of a robot's body (e.g., its buttocks and genitals) was more physiologically arousing than touching more accessible regions (e.g., its hands and feet). No differences in physiological arousal were found when just pointing to those same anatomical regions. A social robot elicited tactile responses in human physiology, a result that signals people treat touching body parts as an act of closeness in itself that does not require a human recipient. The power of touching a humanoid body with identifiable body parts should caution mechanical and interaction designers about the positive and negative effects of human-robot interaction.

A Little Anthropomorphism Goes a Long Way

“…The observed effects in this study will likely be stronger if participants interacted with real human participants and higher fidelity of the appearance, voice, behavior, agency, and intentionality of virtual agents (Brainbridge, Hart, Kim, & Scassellati, 2011; de Melo, Gratch, & Carnevale, 2014; Fox et al, 2014; Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007; Hancock et al, 2011; Lucas et al, 2014; Muralidharan, de Visser, & Parasuraman, 2014; van den Brule, Dotsch, Bijlstra, Wigboldus, & Haselager, 2014). While some have argued that the mere situational presentation of an agent is sufficient to elicit social responses towards a computer (Nass & Moon, 2000; Nass et al, 1994; Reeves & Nass, 1996), others have shown strong physiological responses with more high-fidelity embodied agents such as robots (Li, Ju, & Reeves, 2016). Future research should examine whether oxytocin interacts with the fidelity of the agent.…”

Not Only the Lonely—How Men Explicitly and Implicitly Evaluate the Attractiveness of Sex Robots in Comparison to the Attractiveness of Women, and Personal Characteristics Influencing This Evaluation

“…Although the authors did not discuss this in particular, it can be assumed that the increased arousal cannot be compared to sexual arousal, as the humanoid NAO is 57.3 cm/22.6" tall, made of white plastic, and is sometimes even described as being cute in a childlike way [30,31]. Nevertheless, their finding is important, as it shows that touching even remotely human-shaped robots evokes arousal.…”

“…The effect of this so-called Media Equation (media equals real life) has also already been shown with regard to robots (e.g., experiencing empathy, keeping interpersonal distance) [28,29]. In terms of intimate interactions with robots, Li et al conducted a study in which the humanoid robot NAO told the participants to either touch or point to different body parts (with low and high accessibility) [30]. The results showed that people experienced an increased physiological arousal and an increased reaction time when touching regions of the robot's body with lower accessibility (e.g., buttocks or genitals).…”

Perceptions and Responsiveness to Intimacy with Robots; A User Evaluation

“…In Li, J., Ju, W. and Reeves, B. [13], there was a similar study, where they measure the physiological responses to arrive at a conclusion that participants have shown a considerable higher response when touching more low accessibility areas of a robot. They statistically measured the response time, deciding that the response time correlated with arousal, and the results showed that response time is higher for low accessibility areas of robots body.…”

“…Although the premise of this study raised issues, the moral and cultural perspective strongly decide on the human-robot relationship. When the academic community measured in on the role of a robot companion [11], the human experience of psychological intimacy with robots through the physical intimacy [12], human physiological response to intimately touching a robot [13], a systematic survey of the acceptance of sex robots [14] and aspects that influence the purchase of sex robots [15] are (to name a very few) contributing to a greater discussion that would contain what could be described as an emerging phenomena. It is important to emphasize that greater contribution in terms of assessment of social impact and risk management are required for a robust coexistence in future.…”