Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

How Do Communication Cues Change Impressions of Human–Robot Touch Interaction?

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Communication cues, e.g., gaze behaviors and touch styles, are essential factors in the close interaction of people with social robots. Even though the communication cues are broadly investigated in human–robot interaction, it remain unknown how they change human impressions of social robots in haptic interaction situations. For better understanding of communication cues in human–robot touch interaction, we conducted an experiment with 28 participants who interacted with a robot with gaze behaviors and touch styles. We prepared two gaze behaviors and three touch styles based on past research works. Our experimental results showed that participants preferred a gaze behavior more that only looks at their faces during a touch than a gaze behavior that looks at their faces, hands and returns to their face. They also preferred a touch style in which they touched the robot more than touch styles where a robot touches them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hirano T, Shiomi M, Iio T, Kimoto M, Nagashio T, Tanev I, Shimohara K, Hagita N (2016) communication cues in a human–robot touch interaction. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on human agent interaction, Biopolis, pp 201–206

  2. Grewen KM, Anderson BJ, Girdler SS, Light KC (2003) Warm partner contact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity. Behav Med 29(3):123–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Turner RB, Doyle WJ (2015) Does hugging provide stress-buffering social support? A study of susceptibility to upper respiratory infection and illness. Psychol Sci 26(2):135–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jakubiak BK, Feeney BC (2016) Keep in touch: the effects of imagined touch support on stress and exploration. J Exp Soc Psychol 65:59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gallace A, Spence C (2010) The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34(2):246–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Light KC, Grewen KM, Amico JA (2005) More frequent partner hugs and higher oxytocin levels are linked to lower blood pressure and heart rate in premenopausal women. Biol Psychol 69(1):5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Field T (2010) Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: a review. Dev Rev 30(4):367–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher JD, Rytting M, Heslin R (1976) Hands touching hands: affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry 39(4):416–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith DE, Gier JA, Willis FN (1982) Interpersonal touch and compliance with a marketing request. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 3(1):35–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burgoon JK, Buller DB, Hale JL, Turck MA (1984) Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Hum Commun Res 10(3):351–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hornik J (1992) Effects of physical contact on customers’ shopping time and behavior. Mark Lett 3(1):49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guéguen N (2002) Touch, awareness of touch, and compliance with a request. Percept Mot Skills 95(2):355–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guéguen N, Jacob C (2005) The effect of touch on tipping: an evaluation in a French bar. Int J Hosp Manag 24(2):295–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Guéguen N, Jacob C, Boulbry G (2007) The effect of touch on compliance with a restaurant’s employee suggestion. Int J Hosp Manag 26(4):1019–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li J (2015) The benefit of being physically present: a survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. Int J Hum Comput Stud 77:23–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bainbridge WA, Hart J, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2008) The effect of presence on human–robot interaction. In: RO-MAN 2008—the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 701–706

  17. Powers A, Kiesler S, Fussell S, Torrey C (2007) Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In: 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 145–152

  18. Shinozawa K, Naya F, Yamato J, Kogure K (2005) Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62(2):267–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yu R, Hui E, Lee J, Poon D, Ng A, Sit K, Ip K, Yeung F, Wong M, Shibata T, Woo J (2015) Use of a therapeutic, socially assistive pet robot (PARO) in improving mood and stimulating social interaction and communication for people with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 4(2):e45

  20. Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Shinozawa K, Matsumura R, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2017) Does a robot’s touch encourage human effort? Int J Soc Robot 9(1):5–15

  21. Cramer H, Kemper N, Amin A, Wielinga B, Evers V (2009) ‘Give me a hug’: the effects of touch and autonomy on people’s responses to embodied social agents. Comput Anim Virtual Worlds 20(2–3):437–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cramer H, Kemper N, Amin A, Evers V (2009) Touched by robots: effects of physical contact and robot proactiveness. In: Workshop on the reign of Catz and Dogz in CHI

  23. Chen TL, King C-HA, Thomaz AL, Kemp CC (2013) An investigation of responses to robot-initiated touch in a nursing context. Int J Soc Robot 6(1):141–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Satake S, Kanda T, Glas DF, Imai M, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2013) A robot that approaches pedestrians. IEEE Trans Robot 29(2):508–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hayashi K, Shiomi M, Kanda T, Hagita N, Robotics AI (2012) Friendly patrolling: a model of natural encounters. In: Proceedings of the RSS, pp 121

  26. Shi C, Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2015) Measuring communication participation to initiate conversation in human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(5):889–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gharbi M, Paubel PV, Clodic A, Carreras O, Alami R, Cellier JM (2015) Toward a better understanding of the communication cues involved in a human–robot object transfer. In: 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 319–324

  28. Shi C, Shiomi M, Smith C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H (2013) A model of distributional handing interaction for a mobile robot. In: Robotics: science and systems, pp 24–28

  29. Breazeal C, Kidd CD, Thomaz AL, Hoffman G, Berlin M (2005) Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human–robot teamwork. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2005 (IROS 2005), pp 708–713

  30. Kuno Y, Sadazuka K, Kawashima M, Yamazaki K, Yamazaki A, Kuzuoka H (2007) Museum guide robot based on sociological interaction analysis. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, pp 1191–1194

  31. Mutlu B, Shiwa T, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Footing in human-robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, pp 61–68

  32. Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Hagita N (2013) Design of a gaze behavior at a small mistake moment for a robot. Interact Stud 14(3):317–328

    Google Scholar 

  33. Komatsubara T, Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2014) Can a social robot help children’s understanding of science in classrooms? In: Proceedings of the second international conference on Human-agent interaction, Tsukuba, pp 83–90

  34. Yamazaki R, Christensen L, Skov K, Chang C-C, Damholdt MF, Sumioka H, Nishio S, Ishiguro H (2016) Intimacy in phone conversations: anxiety reduction for danish seniors with hugvie. Front Psychol 7:537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Salter T, Michaud F, Letourneau D, Lee D, Werry IP (2007) Using proprioceptive sensors for categorizing human–robot interactions. In: 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 105–112

  36. Jun Ki L, Toscano RL, Stiehl WD, Breazeal C (2008) The design of a semi-autonomous robot avatar for family communication and education. In: RO-MAN 2008—the 17th ieee international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 166–173

  37. Cooney M, Kanda T, Alissandrakis A, Ishiguro H (2014) Designing enjoyable motion-based play interactions with a small humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 6(2):173–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fukuda H, Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Ueda K (2012) Midas touch’in human–robot interaction: evidence from event-related potentials during the ultimatum game. In: 2012 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 131–132

  39. Essick GK, James A, McGlone FP (1999) Psychophysical assessment of the affective components of non-painful touch. NeuroReport 10(10):2083–2087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Martin BA (2012) A stranger’s touch: effects of accidental interpersonal touch on consumer evaluations and shopping time. J Consum Res 39(1):174–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Park E, Lee J (2014) I am a warm robot: the effects of temperature in physical human–robot interaction. Robotica 32(01):133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nie J, Park M, Marin AL, Sundar SS (2012) Can you hold my hand? Physical warmth in human–robot interaction. In: 2012 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 201–202

  43. Li J, Ju W, Reeves B (2016) Touching a mechanical body: tactile contact with intimate parts of a humanoid robot is physiologically arousing. In: 66th Annual conference of the international communication association, Fukuoka, Japan

  44. Major B, Heslin R (1982) Perceptions of cross-sex and same-sex nonreciprocal touch: it is better to give than to receive. J Nonverbal Behav 6(3):148–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP15H05322, JP 16K12505, and JP 15K16075.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intelligent Robotics and Communication Laboratories, ATR, 2-2-2 Hikaridai, Keihanna-Sci. City, Kyoto, Japan

    Takahiro Hirano, Masahiro Shiomi, Takamasa Iio, Mitsuhiko Kimoto & Norihiro Hagita

  2. Doshisha University, 1-3 Tatara Miyakodani, Kyotanabe-shi, Kyoto, Japan

    Takahiro Hirano, Mitsuhiko Kimoto, Ivan Tanev & Katsunori Shimohara

  3. Osaka University, 1-3 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka, Japan

    Takamasa Iio

Authors
  1. Takahiro Hirano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masahiro Shiomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takamasa Iio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mitsuhiko Kimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ivan Tanev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Katsunori Shimohara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Norihiro Hagita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masahiro Shiomi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This paper is an extended version of a previous work of Hirano et al. [1] and contains additional experiment results and more detailed discussions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hirano, T., Shiomi, M., Iio, T. et al. How Do Communication Cues Change Impressions of Human–Robot Touch Interaction?. Int J of Soc Robotics 10, 21–31 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0425-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0425-8

Keywords