Advertisement

Huggy Pajama: Remote Hug System for Family Communication

  • Adrian David Cheok
  • Emma Yann ZhangEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

Touch is a quintessential expression of love and intimacy. It comprises a large part of non-verbal human communication, and plays a signification role in conveying emotions, building relationship bonds, and improving mental and physical well-being. A major technical challenge in making robots and virtual characters that interact with humans on a physical and emotional level is mutual robotic touch. Novel touch sensing and actuation systems need to be developed in order to endow such digital partners with this emotional sense. This chapter presents an early work of a series of projects on digital touch we have been working on in our lab over the last ten years or so. Huggy Pajama is a remote hugging communication system that allows family members to hug each other over the Internet. The input interface is a small, mobile device that measures human touch force, whereas the output interface is a wearable jacket with embedded pneumatic actuators for force actuation. The results of this work made it possible to substantiate the development of subsequent robotic touch communication systems.

References

  1. 1.
    Analog Devices (2007) Programmable capacitive to digital converter with environmental compensation AD7142. Product application publication retrieved from www.analog.com
  2. 2.
    Bonanni L, Vaucelle C, Lieberman J, Zuckerman O (2006) Playpals: tangible interfaces for remote communication and play. In: CHI ’06: CHI ’06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 574–579.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125572
  3. 3.
    Bonanni L, Vaucelle C, Lieberman J, Zuckerman O (2006) Taptap: a haptic wearable for asynchronous distributed touch therapy. In: CHI ’06: CHI ’06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 580–585Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgers N, Hox J (2000) Reliability of responses in questionnaire research with children plus coding scheme: a technical report. In: the 5th international conference on logic and methodology, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borgers N, de Leeuw E, Hox J (2000) Children as respondents in survey research: cognitive development and response quality. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de M Thodologie Sociologique 66(1):60–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borgers N, Hox J, Sikkel D (2003) Response quality in survey research with children and adolescents: the effect of labelled response options and vague quantifiers. Int Pub Opin Res 15(1):83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowlby J (1982) Attachment and loss. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bradley M, Lang P (1994) Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 25:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brave S, Ishii H, Dahley A (1998) Tangible interfaces for remote collaboration and communication. In: CSCW ’98: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 169–178.  https://doi.org/10.1145/289444.289491
  11. 11.
    Brewster SA, Chohan F, Brown LM (2007) Tactile feedback for mobile interactions. ACM Press Addison-Wesley, Reading, p 159Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carlson M (1998) Understanding the ‘mother’s touch’. Harv Mahoney Neurosci Inst Lett Brain 7(1)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cassell J, Thorisson KR (1999) The power of a nod and a glance: envelope vs. emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Appl Artif Intell 13(4–5):519–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang SO (2001) The conceptual structure of physical touch in caring. J Adv Nurs 33(6):820–827.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01721.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen D, Haviland-Jones J (2000) Human olfactory communication of emotion. Percept Mot Sk 91(3):771–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dykes RW, McBain D (2011) Cutaneous receptors. Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safetyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ekman P, Friesen WV (1971) Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. J Personal Soc Psychol 17(2):124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erp JBFV, Veen HAHCV, Jansen C, Dobbins T (2005) Waypoint navigation with a vibrotactile waist belt. ACM Trans Appl Percept 2(2):106–117.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1060581.1060585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fogg B, Cutler LD, Arnold P, Eisbach C (1998) Handjive: a device for interpersonal haptic entertainment. In: CHI ’98: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fosshage JL (2000) The meanings of touch in psychoanalysis: a time for reassessment. Psychoanal Inq 20(1):20–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gemperle F, DiSalvo C, Forlizzi J, Yonkers W (2003) The hug: a new form for communication. In: DUX ’03: proceedings of the 2003 conference on designing for user experiences, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997103
  22. 22.
    Greenbaum PE, Turner C, Cook EW, Melamed BG (1990) Dentists’ voice control: effects on children’s disruptive and affective behavior. Health Psychol 9(9):546–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guyton A (1991) Textbook of medical physiology. W.B. Saunders Company, PhiladelpiaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haans A, IJsselsteijn W (2006) Mediated social touch: a review of current research and future directions. Virtual Real 9(2):149–159.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-005-0014-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haans A, de Nood C, IJsselsteijn WA (2007) Investigating response similarities between real and mediated social touch: a first test. CHI ’07: CHI ’07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 2405–2410Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hatzfeld C (2014) Haptics as an interaction modality, pp 29–100Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heller MA, Heller MA, Schiff W (1991) The psychology of touch. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Henley N (1977) Body politics: power, sex and nonverbal communication. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heslin R, Boss D (1980) Nonverbal intimacy in airport arrival and departure. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 6:248–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holleis P, Schmidt A, Paasovaara S, Puikkonen A, Häkkilä J (2008) Evaluating capacitive touch input on clothes. In: MobileHCI ’08: proceedings of the 10th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 81–90Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hudson SE (2004) Using light emitting diode arrays as touch-sensitive input and output devices. In: UIST ’04: Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 287–290Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Interlink Electronics (2007) Force sensing resistor integration guide. Product manual retrieved from Interlink Electronics Inc. www.interlinkelectronics.com
  33. 33.
    Jokiniemi M, Raisamo R, Lylykangas J, Surakka V (2008) Crossmodal rhythm perception. Haptic and audio interaction design. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–119Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kiatkamjornwong S (2007) Superabsorbent polymers and superabsorbent polymer composites. Sci Asia 33(s1):39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Killeen C (1998) Loneliness: an epidemic in modern society. J Adv Nurs 28(4):762–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ (2003) Touch. Handbook of psychology: experimental psychology, vol 4. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 147–176Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klopper R (2005) The evolution of human communication from nonverbal communication to electronic communications. Alternation 12(1a):107–120Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee M (2007) The art of capacitive touch sensing. Cypress perform, Published in Embedded com (http://www.embedded.com), pp 1–10
  39. 39.
    Lee P, Cheok D, James S, Debra L, Jie W, Chuang W, Farbiz F (2006) A mobile pet wearable computer and mixed reality system for human-poultry interaction through the internet. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 10(5):301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee SK Buxton W (1985) A multi-touch three dimensional touch-sensitive tablet. In: Proceedings of the CHI85 conference on human factors in computing systems, p 21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lewis JR (1995) Ibm computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 7(1):57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lindeman RW, Page R, Yanagida Y, Sibert JL (2004) Towards full-body haptic feedback: the design and deployment of a spatialized vibrotactile feedback system. In: VRST ’04: proceedings of the ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 146–149Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lussey D (1998) Invention of new polymer composition. US Patent WO98/33193Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lussey D (1999) Invention of new polymer composition. US Patent WO99/38173Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Maccoby E, Maccoby N (1954) The interview: a tool of social science. In: Lindzey G (ed) Handbook of social psychology, theory and method, vol 1. Addison-Wesley, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mehrabian A, Ferris SR (1967) Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. J Consult Psychol 31(3):248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Morgan Electro Ceramics Ltd (2007) Technical publication tp0238 on piezoelectricity. http://www.morganelectroceramics.com
  48. 48.
    Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moszkowski R, Stack D (2007) Infant touching behaviour during mother-infa, nt face-to-face interactions. Infant Child Dev 16:307–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mueller F, Vetere F, Gibbs MR, Kjeldskov J, Pedell S, Howard S (2005) Hug over a distance. In: CHI’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 1673–1676Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Neuberger J (2008) Are we too afraid of touch? The Sunday TimesGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Paskind JK (2004) NSF 2002 Senior design projects to aid persons with disabilities. Creative Learning Press, IncGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pelaez-Nogueras M, Field T, Hossain Z, Pickens J (1996) Depressed mothers’ touching increases infants’ positive affect and attention in still-face interactions. Child Dev 67:1780–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pressure Profile Systems Inc (2010) Capacitive primer- tactile sensor array. Product manual retrieved from www.pressureprofile.com
  55. 55.
    Ranasinghe N, Zhu K, Abeyrathne D, Danjo M, Karunanayaka K, Edirisinghe CP, Nancy LLM, Morisawa Y, Peiris RL, Teh JKS et al (2010) Kawaii/cute interactive media. Springer, Berlin, pp 223–253Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Raskar R, Welch G, Cutts M, Lake A, Stesin L, Fuchs H (1998) The office of the future: a unified approach to image-based modeling and spatially immersive displays. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, ACM, pp 179–188Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rekimoto J (2002) Smartskin: an infrastructure for freehand manipulation of interactive surfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing system: changing our world, changing ourselves, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp 113–120Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rochlis JL, Newman DJ (2000) A tactile display for international space station (ISS) extravehicular activity (EVA). Aviat Space Environ Med 71(6):571–578Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sekiguchi D, Inami M, Tachi S (2001) RobotPHONE: RUI for interpersonal communication. In: CHI ’01: CHI ’01 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 277–278.  https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634231
  60. 60.
    Seongtae B (2007) Sensors of biomedical application. Lecture material for National University of Singapore Course EE4601Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Spelmezan D, Jacobs M, Hilgers A, Borchers J (2009) Tactile motion instructions for physical activities. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems CHI 09 (C), p 2243Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Stiehl WD, Breazeal C, Han KH, Lieberman J, Lalla L, Maymin A, Salinas J, Fuentes D, Toscano R, Tong CH, Kishore A, Berlin M, Gray J (2006) The huggable: a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: SIGGRAPH ’06: ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 emerging technologies, ACM, New York, NY, USA, p 15Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Vaucelle C, Abbas Y (2007) Touch: sensitive apparel. In: CHI ’07: CHI ’07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 2723–2728.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1240866.1241069
  64. 64.
    Vaucelle C, Africano D, Davenport G, Wiberg M, Fjellstrom O (2005) Moving pictures: looking out/looking in. In: SIGGRAPH ’05: ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 educators program, ACM, New York, NY, USA, p 27.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1187358.1187391
  65. 65.
    Weinstein S (1968) Intensive and extensive aspects of tactile sensitivity as a function of body part, sex and laterality. The skin senses. Charles C. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    White K (2004) Touch: attachment and the body. Karnac Books, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Imagineering InstituteIskander PuteriMalaysia

Personalised recommendations