Advertisement

Artificial Life and Robotics

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 58–63 | Cite as

Psychological effects of physical embodiment in artificial pet therapy

  • Rina Hayashi
  • Shohei Kato
Original Article
  • 436 Downloads

Abstract

The increase in stress-related problems and the corresponding rapid growth in demand for pet therapy have created a demand for stress-relief methods through interactions with pet robots and virtual pets instead of real animals; however, it is unclear which characteristics of pet robots and virtual pets have therapeutic effects. In this study, we use the temporary mood scale to compare the therapeutic effects produced by a pet robot and a virtual pet, focusing on the effects of the physical interactions enabled by physical embodiment. The pet robot shows significantly lower tension scores and higher vigor scores when compared with the virtual pet. These results suggest that pet robots have a greater therapeutic effect than virtual pets, particularly with regard to their ability to ease tension and increase vigor.

Keywords

Human–robot interaction Physical embodiment Robot-assisted therapy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is partially supported by the Matching Planner Program under Grant #MP27115663051 from the Japan Science and Technology Agency, JST.

References

  1. 1.
    Baum MM, Bergstrom N, Langston NF, Thoma L (1984) Physiological effects of human/companion animal bonding. Nurs Res 33(3):126–129Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K (2004) Psychological and social effects in long-term experiment of robot assisted activity to elderly people at a health service facility for the aged. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 3068–3073Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hit-Point, NekoAtsume Official Website (2016) http://hpmobile.jp/games/neko/. Accessed 4 May 2016
  4. 4.
    Kashibuchi M, Kurosu M, Sakamoto A (2005) An empirical study of human-robot interaction. NIME Research Report (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sato A, Kito T (2011) Does the materiality of objects influence the animacy perception? Kurume Univ Psychol Res 10:45–51 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayashi R, Kato S (2015) CHOBONYAN: soft-stuffed robot in palmtop size and light weight for therapy. In: Proceedings of the IEEE global conference on consumer electronicsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leap Motion Inc, Leap Motion (2016) https://www.leapmotion.com/. Accessed 4 May 2016
  8. 8.
    McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF (1971) EITS manual for profile of mood states. Educational ans Industrial Testing ServiceGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tokuda K (2011) The validity of temporary mood scale. Ritsumeikan J Hum Sci 22:1–6 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hayashi F (1978) The fundamental dimensions of interpersonal cognitive structure. Bull Fac Educ Nagoya Univ 25:233–247 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenberg S, Nelson C, Vivekananthan PS (1968) A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. J Personal Soc Psychol 9(4):283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ogawa K, Bartneck C, Sakamoto D (2009) Can an android persuade you? In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 516–521Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miwa K, Terai H, Hirose S (2008) Social responses to collaborator: dilemma game with human and computer agent. In: Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, pp 2455–2460Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAROB 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nippon Soken, Inc.NishioJapan
  2. 2.Nagoya Institute of TechnologyNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations