, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 339–345 | Cite as

Biological movement increases acceptance of humanoid robots as human partners in motor interaction

  • Aleksandra KupferbergEmail author
  • Stefan Glasauer
  • Markus Huber
  • Markus Rickert
  • Alois Knoll
  • Thomas Brandt
Original Article


The automatic tendency to anthropomorphize our interaction partners and make use of experience acquired in earlier interaction scenarios leads to the suggestion that social interaction with humanoid robots is more pleasant and intuitive than that with industrial robots. An objective method applied to evaluate the quality of human–robot interaction is based on the phenomenon of motor interference (MI). It claims that a face-to-face observation of a different (incongruent) movement of another individual leads to a higher variance in one’s own movement trajectory. In social interaction, MI is a consequence of the tendency to imitate the movement of other individuals and goes along with mutual rapport, sense of togetherness, and sympathy. Although MI occurs while observing a human agent, it disappears in case of an industrial robot moving with piecewise constant velocity. Using a robot with human-like appearance, a recent study revealed that its movements led to MI, only if they were based on human prerecording (biological velocity), but not on constant (artificial) velocity profile. However, it remained unclear, which aspects of the human prerecorded movement triggered MI: biological velocity profile or variability in movement trajectory. To investigate this issue, we applied a quasi-biological minimum-jerk velocity profile (excluding variability in the movement trajectory as an influencing factor of MI) to motion of a humanoid robot, which was observed by subjects performing congruent or incongruent arm movements. The increase in variability in subjects’ movements occurred both for the observation of a human agent and for the robot performing incongruent movements, suggesting that an artificial human-like movement velocity profile is sufficient to facilitate the perception of humanoid robots as interaction partners.


Motor interference Humanoid robot Motor resonance Mirror neuron system Action–perception coupling Interaction 



This research was supported by Graduiertenförderung nach dem Bay. Eliteförderungsgesetz and the DFG Cluster of Excellence “CoTeSys”.


  1. Blake R, Turner LM, Smoski MJ, Pozdol SL, Stone WL (2003) Visual recognition of biological motion is impaired in children with autism. Psychol Sci 14(2):151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blow MP, Dautenhahn K, Appleby A, Nehaniv CL, Lee D (2006) Perception of robot smiles and dimensions for human-robot interaction design. In: 15th IEEE Int symposium on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN 06). 469–474Google Scholar
  3. Bouquet CA, Gaurier V, Shipley T, Toussaint L, Blandin Y (2007) Influence of the perception of biological or non-biological motion on movement execution. J Sports Sci 25:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brass M, Bekkering H, Prinz W (2001) Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychol 106(1–2):3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breazeal C, Buchsbaum D, Gray J, Gatenby D, Blumberg B (2005) Learning from and about others: towards using imitation to bootstrap the social understanding of others by robots. Artif Life 11(1–2):31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Seitz RJ, Zilles K, Rizzolati G, Freund HJ (2001) Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. Eur J Neurosci 13:400–404Google Scholar
  7. Buccino G, Binkofski F, Riggio L (2004) The mirror neuron system and action recognition. Brain Lang 89(2):370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaminade T (02008) Applying motor resonance to humanoid robots In: Proceedings of IRO’S 2008, Nice, France, Sept 26Google Scholar
  9. Chaminade T, Franklin D, Oztop E, Cheng G (2005) Motor interference between humans and humanoid robots: effect of biological and artificial motion. In IEEE 4th international conference on development and learning, Osaka (Japan), pp 96–101Google Scholar
  10. Chartrand TL, Bargh JA (1999) The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 76(6):893–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dakin S, Frith U (2005) Vagaries of visual perception in autism. Neuron 48(3):497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiSalvo C, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, London, England, 25–28 June 2002Google Scholar
  13. Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Rob Auton Syst 42(3–4):177–190zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Pavesi G, Rizzolatti G (1995) Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. J Neurophysiol 73(6):2608–2611Google Scholar
  15. Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5(7):1688–1703Google Scholar
  16. Gazzola V, Rizzolatti G, Wicker B, Keysers C (2007) The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. NeuroImage 35:1674–1684Google Scholar
  17. Gergely C (2008) Goal attribution to inanimate agents by 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition 107:705–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation, In: ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2003), pp. 55–60Google Scholar
  19. Gowen E, Stanley J, Miall RC (2008) Movement interference in autism-spectrum disorder. Neuropsychologia 46(4):1060–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hadjikhani N, Joseph RM, Snyder J, Tager-Flusberg H (2007) Abnormal activation of the social brain during face perception in autism. Hum Brain Mapp 28(5):441–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hegel F, Lohse M, Swadzba A, Rohlfing K, Wachsmuth S, Wrede B (2007) Classes of applications for social robots: a user study. In proceedings of international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). Jeju Island, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  22. Huber M, Rickert M, Knoll A, Brandt T, Glasauer S (2008) Human-robot interaction in handing-over tasks. In: Proceedings of 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp. 107–112Google Scholar
  23. Iacoboni M, Molnar-Szakacs I, Gallese V, Buccino G, Mazziotta JC, Rizzolatti G (2005) Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system. PLoS Biology 3(3):e79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson S, Brady N, Cummins F, Monaghan K (2006) Interaction effects in simultaneous motor control and movement perception tasks. Artif Intell Rev 26(1):141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs A, Pinto J, Shiffrar M (2004) Experience, context, and the visual perception of human movement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30(5):822–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeannerod M (2001) Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage 14(1):103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson MH (2006) Biological motion: a perceptual life detector? Curr Biol 16(10):376–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jordan H, Reiss JE, Hoffman JE, Landau B (2002) Intact perception of biological motion in the face of profound spatial deficits: Williams syndrome. Psychol Sci 13(2):162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Imai M, Ono T (2004) Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots. In proceedings of the IEEE (special issue on human interactive robot for psychological enrichment) 92:1839–1850Google Scholar
  30. Kilner J, Paulignan Y, Blakemore S (2003) An Interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Curr Biol 13(6):522–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kilner J, Hamilton AFDC, Blakemore S (2007) Interference effect of observed human movement on action is due to velocity profile of biological motion. Social Neurosci 2(3):158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macrae CN, Duffy OK, Miles LK, Lawrence J (2008) A case of hand waving: action synchrony and person perception. Cognition 109(1):152–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ono T, Imai M, Ishiguro H (2001) A model of embodied communications with gestures between humans and robots, In proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting cognitive science society, pp. 732–737Google Scholar
  34. Oztop E, Franklin D, Chaminade T, Cheng G (2005) Human-humanoid interaction: is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? Int J HR 2:537–559Google Scholar
  35. Paccalin C, Jeannerod M (2000) Changes in breathing during observation of effortful actions. Brain Res 862(1–2):194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paul BM, Stiles J, Passarotti A, Bavar N, Bellugi U (2002) Face and place processing in Williams syndrome: evidence for a dorsal-ventral dissociation. Neuroreport 13(9):1115–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Premack D (1990) The infant’s theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition 36:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prinz W (1997) Perception and action planning. Eur J Cogn Psychol 9:129–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reinhart G, Vogl W, Rösel W, Wallhoff F, Lenz C (2007) JAHIR—Joint action for humans and industrial robots. Fachforum “Intelligente Sensorik—Robotik und Automation”, Bayern Innovativ—Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH, AugsburgGoogle Scholar
  40. Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V (2001) Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nat Rev Neurosci 2(9):661–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sebanz N, Bekkering H, Knoblich G (2006) Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends Cogn Sci 10(2):70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stanley J, Gowen E, Miall RC (2007) Effects of agency on movement interference during observation of a moving dot stimulus. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33(4):915–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Syrdal DS, Walters ML, Koay KL, Woods SN, Dautenhahn K. (2007) Looking good? Appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance. In: technical report of the aaai—spring symposium 2007, multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics, pp. 86–92Google Scholar
  44. Troje NF, Westhoff C (2006) The inversion effect in biological motion perception: evidence for a “life detector”? Curr Biol 16(8):821–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Troje NF, Sadr J, Geyer H, Nakayama K (2006) Adaptation aftereffects in the perception of gender from biological motion. J Vision, 6(8):850–857Google Scholar
  46. Trout DL, Rosenfeld HM (1980) The effect of postural lean and body congruence on the judgment of psychotherapeutic rapport. J Nonverbal Behav 4(3):176–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksandra Kupferberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefan Glasauer
    • 1
  • Markus Huber
    • 1
  • Markus Rickert
    • 2
  • Alois Knoll
    • 2
  • Thomas Brandt
    • 3
  1. 1.Center For Sensorimotor Research, Clinical NeurosciencesLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Robotics and Embedded Systems Lab, Department of Computer ScienceTechnical University MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Chair For Clinical NeurosciencesLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations