Elyse D. Z. Chase
ABSTRACT
Humans can perceive motion through a variety of different modalities. Vision is a well explored modality; however haptics can greatly increase the richness of information provided to the user. The detailed differences in perception of motion between these two modalities are not well studied and can provide an additional avenue for communication between humans and haptic devices or robots. We analyze these differences in the context of users interactions with a non-anthropomorphic haptic device. In this study, participants experienced different levels and combinations of stiffness, jitter, and acceleration curves via a one degree of freedom linear motion display. These conditions were presented with and without the opportunity for users to touch the setup. Participants rated the experiences within the contexts of emotion, anthropomorphism, likeability, and safety using the SAM scale, HRI metrics, as well as with qualitative feedback. A positive correlation between stiffness and dominance, specifically due to the haptic condition, was found; additionally, with the introduction of jitter, decreases in perceived arousal and likeability were recorded. Trends relating acceleration curves to perceived dominance as well as stiffness and jitter to valence, arousal, dominance, likeability, and safety were also found. These results suggest the importance of considering which sensory modalities are more actively engaged during interactions and, concomitantly, which behaviors designers should employ in the creation of non-anthropomorphic interactive haptic devices to achieve a particular interpreted affective state.
- Kenji Amaya, Armin Bruderlin, and Tom Calvert. 1996. Emotion from motion. In Graphics interface, Vol. 96. Toronto, Canada, 222–229. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mehdi Ammi, Virginie Demulier, Sylvain Caillou, Yoren Gaffary, Yacine Tsalamlal, Jean-Claude Martin, and Adriana Tapus. 2015. Haptic human-robot affective interaction in a handshaking social protocol. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 263–270. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Argyle. 2013. Bodily communication. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Jeremy N Bailenson, Nick Yee, Scott Brave, Dan Merget, and David Koslow. 2007. Virtual interpersonal touch: expressing and recognizing emotions through haptic devices. Human–Computer Interaction 22, 3 (2007), 325–353. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulić, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics 1, 1 (2009), 71–81.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, Paul Cairns, Anna Cox, Charlene Jennett, and Whan Woong Kim. 2006. On posture as a modality for expressing and recognizing emotions. In Emotion and HCI workshop at BCS HCI London.Google Scholar
- Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze and Andrea Kleinsmith. 2003. A categorical approach to affective gesture recognition. Connection science 15, 4 (2003), 259–269.Google Scholar
- Antonio Bicchi, Michael A Peshkin, and J Edward Colgate. 2008. Safety for physical human–robot interaction. Springer handbook of robotics(2008), 1335–1348.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexis E Block and Katherine J Kuchenbecker. 2019. Softness, Warmth, and Responsiveness Improve Robot Hugs. International Journal of Social Robotics 11, 1 (2019), 49–64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Margaret M Bradley and Peter J Lang. 1994. Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 25, 1(1994), 49–59.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scott Brave, Hiroshi Ishii, and Andrew Dahley. 1998. Tangible interfaces for remote collaboration and communication.. In CSCW, Vol. 98. 169–178. Google ScholarDigital Library
- George Breed and Joseph S Ricci. 1973. ” Touch me, like me”: Artifact?. In Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Judee K Burgoon, Laura K Guerrero, and Kory Floyd. 2016. Nonverbal communication. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Carlos Busso, Zhigang Deng, Serdar Yildirim, Murtaza Bulut, Chul Min Lee, Abe Kazemzadeh, Sungbok Lee, Ulrich Neumann, and Shrikanth Narayanan. 2004. Analysis of emotion recognition using facial expressions, speech and multimodal information. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Multimodal interfaces. ACM, 205–211. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten. 1989. Machiavellian intelligence: social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans (oxford science publications). (1989).Google Scholar
- Heather Culbertson, Cara M Nunez, Ali Israr, Frances Lau, Freddy Abnousi, and Allison M Okamura. 2018. A social haptic device to create continuous lateral motion using sequential normal indentation. In 2018 IEEE Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS). IEEE, 32–39.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amol Deshmukh, Bart Craenen, Alessandro Vinciarelli, and Mary Ellen Foster. 2018. Shaping Robot Gestures to Shape Users’ Perception: The Effect of Amplitude and Speed on Godspeed Ratings. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. ACM, 293–300. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeffrey D Fisher, Marvin Rytting, and Richard Heslin. 1976. Hands touching hands: Affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry 39, 4 (1976), 416–421.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew J Hertenstein, Dacher Keltner, Betsy App, Brittany A Bulleit, and Ariane R Jaskolka. 2006. Touch communicates distinct emotions.Emotion 6, 3 (2006), 528.Google Scholar
- Meghan E Huber, Charlotte Folinus, and Neville Hogan. 2017. Visual perception of limb stiffness. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 3049–3055.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gijs Huisman, Aduen Darriba Frederiks, Betsy Van Dijk, Dirk Hevlen, and Ben Kröse. 2013. The TaSSt: Tactile sleeve for social touch. In 2013 World Haptics Conference (WHC). IEEE, 211–216.Google ScholarCross Ref
- KG Jolly, R Sreerama Kumar, and R Vijayakumar. 2009. A Bezier curve based path planning in a multi-agent robot soccer system without violating the acceleration limits. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 57, 1 (2009), 23–33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lynette A Jones and Erin Piateski. 2006. Contribution of tactile feedback from the hand to the perception of force. Experimental Brain Research 168, 1-2 (2006), 298–302.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lawrence H Kim and Sean Follmer. 2017. Ubiswarm: Ubiquitous robotic interfaces and investigation of abstract motion as a display. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (2017), 66. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark L Knapp, Judith A Hall, and Terrence G Horgan. 2013. Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
- Heather Knight and Reid Simmons. 2014. Expressive motion with x, y and theta: Laban effort features for mobile robots. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2014 RO-MAN: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 267–273.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jong-Hoon Lee, Jin-Yung Park, and Tek-Jin Nam. 2007. Emotional interaction through physical movement. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 401–410. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karon E MacLean. 2008. Haptic interaction design for everyday interfaces. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics 4, 1 (2008), 149–194.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Albert Mehrabian. 1996. Pleasure-arousal-dominance: A general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in temperament. Current Psychology 14, 4 (1996), 261–292.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ashley Montagu and Ashley Montague. 1971. Touching: The human significance of the skin. Columbia University Press New York.Google Scholar
- Kayako Nakagawa, Masahiro Shiomi, Kazuhiko Shinozawa, Reo Matsumura, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2011. Effect of robot’s active touch on people’s motivation. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 465–472. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Neff and Eugene Fiume. 2002. Modeling tension and relaxation for computer animation. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer animation. ACM, 81–88. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gaëtan Podevijn, Rehan O’Grady, Nithin Mathews, Audrey Gilles, Carole Fantini-Hauwel, and Marco Dorigo. 2016. Investigating the effect of increasing robot group sizes on the human psychophysiological state in the context of human–swarm interaction. Swarm Intelligence 10, 3 (2016), 193–210.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank E Pollick, Helena M Paterson, Armin Bruderlin, and Anthony J Sanford. 2001. Perceiving affect from arm movement. Cognition 82, 2 (2001), B51–B61.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martin Saerbeck and Christoph Bartneck. 2010. Perception of affect elicited by robot motion. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. IEEE Press, 53–60. Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Schmerler. 1976. The visual perception of accelerated motion. Perception 5, 2 (1976), 167–185.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julia Seebode. 2015. Emotional feedback for mobile devices. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Masahiro Shiomi, Kayako Nakagawa, Kazuhiko Shinozawa, Reo Matsumura, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2017. Does a robot’s touch encourage human effort?International Journal of Social Robotics 9, 1 (2017), 5–15.Google Scholar
- Aaron W Siegman and Stanley Feldstein. 2014. Nonverbal behavior and communication. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- David Silvera-Tawil, David Rye, and Mari Velonaki. 2014. Interpretation of social touch on an artificial arm covered with an EIT-based sensitive skin. International Journal of Social Robotics 6, 4 (2014), 489–505.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mandayam A Srinivasan, David L Brock, G Lee Beauregard, and Hugh B Morgenbesser. 1995. Visual-haptic illusions in the perception of stiffness of virtual haptic objects. Manuscript in preparation(1995).Google Scholar
- Walter Dan Stiehl, Jeff Lieberman, Cynthia Breazeal, Louis Basel, Levi Lalla, and Michael Wolf. 2005. Design of a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005.IEEE, 408–415.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hidenobu Sumioka, Aya Nakae, Ryota Kanai, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2013. Huggable communication medium decreases cortisol levels. Scientific reports 3(2013), 3034.Google Scholar
- Colin Swindells, Karon E MacLean, Kellogg S Booth, and Michael J Meitner. 2007. Exploring affective design for physical controls. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 933–942. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haodan Tan, John Tiab, Selma Šabanović, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. Happy Moves, Sad Grooves: Using Theories of Biological Motion and Affect to Design Shape-Changing Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 1282–1293. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales.Journal of personality and social psychology 54, 6(1988), 1063.Google Scholar
- Peter A White. 2012. The experience of force: The role of haptic experience of forces in visual perception of object motion and interactions, mental simulation, and motion-related judgments.Psychological Bulletin 138, 4 (2012), 589.Google Scholar
- Frank N Willis and Helen K Hamm. 1980. The use of interpersonal touch in securing compliance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 5, 1 (1980), 49–55.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Steve Yohanan and Karon E MacLean. 2012. The role of affective touch in human-robot interaction: Human intent and expectations in touching the haptic creature. International Journal of Social Robotics 4, 2 (2012), 163–180.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ruby Yu, Elsie Hui, Jenny Lee, Dawn Poon, Ashley Ng, Kitty Sit, Kenny Ip, Fannie Yeung, Martin Wong, Takanori Shibata, 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 research protocols 4, 2 (2015).Google Scholar
- Differences in Haptic and Visual Perception of Expressive 1DoF Motion
Recommendations
The communicative role of non-face emojis
Emojis have evolved from imitations of facial expressions meant to communicate affect into pictures of objects, food, and places that are not directly linked to affect. While emojis that resemble facial expressions are well-researched, emojis that ...
Affective guidance of intelligent agents: How emotion controls cognition
How do emotions and moods color cognition? In this article, we examine how such reactions influence both judgments and cognitive performance. We argue that many affective influences are due, not to affective reactions themselves, but to the information ...
Are emoji valid indicators of in-the-moment mood?
AbstractDespite widespread assumptions that emoji represent emotions, research findings show that we do not process emoji in a way which we would expect for emotional stimuli. As such, we might be better placed to consider them more in line with mood ...
Highlights- The Emoji PANAS scale can reduce linguistic confounds when reporting current affective state
- Emoji are unlikely to be a valid means for reporting mood for those high in emotionality
- Emoji may be better consider mood indicators ...
Comments