Advertisement

Audio-Visual Stimuli Change not Only Robot’s Hug Impressions but Also Its Stress-Buffering Effects

  • Masahiro ShiomiEmail author
  • Norihiro Hagita
Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes how audio and visual stimuli during a robot’s hug change its perceived impressions and stress-buffering effects. In human science literature, the perceived gender influences the impressions of touch interactions, including hugs. In this study we investigate whether the perceived gender of an interacting agent controlled by audio-visual stimuli affects the influence of positive hugs like a stress-buffering effect. We used a system called Metahug that integrates a robot and a virtual reality application and prepared both female- and male-appearance agents and experimentally investigated the audio-visual effects for human–robot hug interaction. Our results showed that the robot’s hug impressions were significantly different based on the agents’ genders. Moreover, the participants reported significantly lower tension in a stressful task when they hugged an opposite-gender-appearance agent compared to a same-gender-appearance agent. Our results suggest that the Metahug system can change both the impressions of a robot’s hug and stress-buffering effects of the hug by altering the audio and visual stimuli of the virtual reality application.

Keywords

Hug interaction Human–robot touch interaction Virtual reality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JST CREST Grant Number JPMJCR18A1, Japan.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Shiomi M, Hagita N (2017) Do Audio-Visual Stimuli Change Hug Impressions? In: Kheddar A, Yoshida E, Ge SS, et al (eds) Social robotics: proceedings of 9th international conference, ICSR 2017, Tsukuba, Japan, November 22–24. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 345–354Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nourbakhsh IR, Kunz C, Willeke T (2003)The mobot museum robot installations: a five year experiment. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. (IROS 2003), pp 3636–3641Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Interactive Humanoid Robots for a Science Museum. IEEE Intell Syst 2:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shiomi M, Kanda T, Howley I, Hayashi K, Hagita N (2015) Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? Int J Soc Robot 7(5):641–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gross H-M, Böhme H-J, Schröter C, Mueller S, König A, Martin C, Merten M, Bley A (2008) Shopbot: progress in developing an interactive mobile shopping assistant for everyday use. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 2008. SMC 2008, pp 3471–3478Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Satake S, Hayashi K, Nakatani K, Kanda T (2015) Field trial of an information-providing robot in a shopping mall. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 1832–1839Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grewen KM, Anderson BJ, Girdler SS, Light KC (2003) Warm partner contact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity. Behav Med 29(3):123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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):135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jakubiak BK, Feeney BC (2016) Keep in touch: the effects of imagined touch support on stress and exploration. J Exp Soc Psychol 65:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gallace A, Spence C (2010) The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34(2):246–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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):5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Field T (2010) Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: a review. Dev Rev 30(4):367–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu R, Hui E, Lee J, Poon D, Ng A, Sit K, Ip K, Yeung F, Wong M, Shibata T (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)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Shinozawa K, Matsumura R, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2016) Does a robot’s touch encourage human effort? Int J Soc Robot 9:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sumioka H, Nakae A, Kanai R, Ishiguro H (2013) Huggable communication medium decreases cortisol levels. Sci Rep 3:3034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2017) A hug from a robot encourages prosocial behavior. In: 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stier DS, Hall JA (1984) Gender differences in touch: an empirical and theoretical review. J Pers Soc Psychol 47(2):440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evans JA (2002) Cautious caregivers: gender stereotypes and the sexualization of men nurses’ touch. J Adv Nurs 40(4):441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldstein P, Weissman-Fogel I, Dumas G, Shamay-Tsoory SG (2018) Brain-to-brain coupling during handholding is associated with pain reduction. In: Proceedings of the national academy of sciencesGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ebesu Hubbard AS, Tsuji AA, Williams C, Seatriz V (2003) Effects of touch on gratuities received in same-gender and cross-gender dyads. J Appl Soc Psychol 33(11):2427–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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: 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 131–132Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakagawa K, Shiomi M, Shinozawa K, Matsumura R, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2012) Effect of robot’s whispering behaviour on people’s motivation. Int J Soc Robot 5(1):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hirano T, Shiomi M, Iio T, Kimoto M, Tanev I, Shimohara K, Hagita N (2017) How do communication cues change impressions of human-robot touch interaction? Int J Soc Robot 10:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2017) A hug from a robot encourages prosocial behavior. In: 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 418–423Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2017) A robot that encourages self-disclosure by hug. In: Kheddar A, Yoshida E, Ge SS, et al. (eds) Social robotics: proceedings of 9th international conference, ICSR 2017, Tsukuba, Japan, November 22–24. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 324–333Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shiomi M, Minato T, Ishiguro H (2017) Subtle reaction and response time effects in human-robot touch interaction. In: International conference on social robotics, pp 242–251Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Willemse CJAM, Toet A, van Erp JBF (2017) Affective and behavioral responses to robot-initiated social touch: toward understanding the opportunities and limitations of physical contact in human-robot interaction. Frontiers in ICT, vol 4, no. 12Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Powers A, Kiesler S (2006) The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction, pp 218–225Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ghazali AS, Ham J, Barakova EI, Markopoulos P (2018) Effects of robot facial characteristics and gender in persuasive human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol 5, no 73Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Siegel M, Breazeal C, Norton MI (2009) Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IROS 2009, pp 2563–2568Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suzuki K, Yokoyama M, Kionshita Y, Mochizuki T, Yamada T, Sakurai S, Narumi T, Tanikawa T, Hirose M (2016) Gender-impression modification enhances the effect of mediated social touch between persons of the same gender. Augment Hum Res 1(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bailenson JN, Yee N (2008) Virtual interpersonal touch: haptic interaction and copresence in collaborative virtual environments. Multimed Tools Appl 37(1):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tremblay L, Roy-Vaillancourt M, Chebbi B, Bouchard S, Daoust M, Dénommée J, Thorpe M (2016) Body image and anti-fat attitudes: an experimental study using a haptic virtual reality environment to replicate human touch. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 19(2):100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Birkett MA (2011) the trier social stress test protocol for inducing psychological stress. J Vis Exp 56:3238Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Creswell JD, Welch WT, Taylor SE, Sherman DK, Gruenewald TL, Mann T (2005) Affirmation of personal values buffers neuroendocrine and psychological stress responses. Psychol Sci 16(11):846–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hellhammer J, Schubert M (2012) The physiological response to trier social stress test relates to subjective measures of stress during but not before or after the test. Psychoneuroendocrinology 37(1):119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leite I, Henriques R, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Sensors in the wild: Exploring electrodermal activity in child-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Perugia G, Rodríguez-Martín D, Boladeras MD, Mallofré AC, Barakova E, Rauterberg M (2017) Electrodermal activity: explorations in the psychophysiology of engagement with social robots in dementia. In: IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN2017), pp 1248–1254Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intelligent Robotics and Communication Labs, ATRKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations