Advertisement

Virtual Reality

, Volume 9, Issue 2–3, pp 149–159 | Cite as

Mediated social touch: a review of current research and future directions

  • Antal Haans
  • Wijnand IJsselsteijn
Original Article

Abstract

In this paper, we review research and applications in the area of mediated or remote social touch. Whereas current communication media rely predominately on vision and hearing, mediated social touch allows people to touch each other over a distance by means of haptic feedback technology. Overall, the reviewed applications have interesting potential, such as the communication of simple ideas (e.g., through Hapticons), establishing a feeling of connectedness between distant lovers, or the recovery from stress. However, the beneficial effects of mediated social touch are usually only assumed and have not yet been submitted to empirical scrutiny. Based on social psychological literature on touch, communication, and the effects of media, we assess the current research and design efforts and propose future directions for the field of mediated social touch.

Keywords

Physical contact Social touch Interpersonal interaction Literature review Computer mediated communication Haptic feedback 

References

  1. 1.
    Holmes NP, Spence C (2004) The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cogn Process 5:94–105 DOI 10.1007/s10339-004-0013-3Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Montagu A, Matson FW (1979) The human connection. McGraw-Hill, NYGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones SE, Yarbrough AE (1985) A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch. Commun Monogr 52:19–56Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Register LM, Henley TB (1992) The phenomenology of intimacy. J Soc Pers Relat 9:467–481Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crusco AH, Wetzel CG (1984) The Midas touch: the effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 10:512–517Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brave S, Nass C, Sirinian E (2001) Force-feedback in computer-mediated communication. In: Universal access in HCI: towards an information society for all, vol 3. Stephanidis C (ed) Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loomis JM, Lederman SJ (1982) What utility is there in distinguishing between active and passive touch? Paper presented at the Psychonomic Society meeting, November 1984, San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loomis JM, Lederman SJ (1986) Tactual perception. In: Handbook of perception and human performance: vol 2, cognitive processes and performances. Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP (eds) Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ (2003) Touch. In: Handbook of psychology: vol 4, experimental psychology. Wiener IB (series ed) Healy AF, Proctor RW (vol eds) Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson KO (2001) The roles and functions of cutaneous mechanoreceptors. Curr Opin Neurobiol 11:455–461 DOI 10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00234-8Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson KO, Yoshioka T, Vega-Bermudez F (2000) Tactile functions of mechanoreceptive afferents innervating the hand. J Clin Neurophysiol 17:539–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sherrick CE, Cholewiak RW (1986) Cutaneous sensitivity. In: Handbook of perception and human performance: vol 1, sensory processes and perception. Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP (eds) Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clark FJ, Horch KW (1986) Kinesthesia. In: Handbook of perception and human performance: vol 1, sensory processes and perception. Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP (eds) Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weber EH (1996) De pulsu, resorptione, audita et tactu. Annotationes anatomicae et physiologicae. In: E. H. Weber on the tactile senses 2nd edn. Ross HE, Murray DJ (eds & trans) Taylor & Francis, Hove, UK (Original work published 1834)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biggs J, Srinivasan MA (2002) Haptic interfaces. In: Stanney KM (ed) Handbook of virtual environments. Lawrence Erlbaum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burdea GC (1996) Force and touch feedback for virtual reality. Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaczmarek KA, Bach-y-Rita P (1995) Tactile displays. In: Barfield W, Furness T (eds) Virtual environments and advanced interface design. Oxford University Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaczmarek KA, Webster JG, Bach-y-Rita P, Tompkins WJ (1991) Electrotactile and vibrotactile displays for sensory substitution systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 38:1–16 DOI 10.1109/10.68204Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bach-y-Rita P, Kercel SW (2003) Sensory substitution and the human-machine interface. Trends Cogn Sci 7:541–546 DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.013Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caldwell G, Gosney C (1993) Enhanced tactile feedback (tele-taction) using a multi-functional sensory system. In: Proceedings of ICRA 1993. DOI 10.1109/ROBOT.1993.292099Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ino S, Shimizu S, Odagawa T, Sato M, Takahashi M, Izumi T, Ifukube T (1993) A tactile display for presenting quality of materials by changing the temperature of skin surface. In: Proceedings of RO-MAN 1993. DOI 10.1109/ROMAN.1993.367718Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ottensmeyer MP, Salisbury JK (1997) Hot and cold running VR: adding thermal stimuli to the haptic experience. In: Proceedings of the 2nd PHANToM users group workshop, October 19–22, 1997, Endicott House, Dedham, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bouzit M, Burdea G, Popescu G, Boian R (2002) The Rutgers Master II: new design force-feedback glove. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatronics 7:256–263 DOI 10.1109/TMECH.2002.1011262Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Massie TH, Salisbury JK (1994) The PHANTOM haptic interface: a device for probing virtual objects. In: Proceedings of the ASME winter annual meeting, symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, November 1994, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van der Linde RQ, Lammertse P, Frederiksen E, Ruiter B (2002) The HapticMaster, a new high-performance haptic interface. In: Proceedings of EuroHaptics 2002. Wall SA, Riedel B, Crossan A, McGee MR (eds)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Biocca F, Kim J, Choi Y (2001) Visual touch in virtual environments: an exploratory study of presence, multimodal interfaces, and cross-modal sensory illusions. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ 10:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Mensvoort K (2002) What you see is what you feel: exploiting the dominance of the visual over the haptic domain to simulate force-feedback with cursor displacements. In: Proceedings of DIS ‘02. ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/778712.778761Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Geldard FA (1960) Some neglected possibilities of communication. Science 131:1583–1588PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Geldard FA (1967) Pattern perception by the skin. In: The skin senses. Kenshalo DR (ed) Charles C Thomas, Springfield, ILGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brewster S, Brown LM (2004) Tactons: structured tactile messages for non-visual information display. In: ACM international conference proceeding Series: vol 53, proceedings of the Fifth Australasian user interface conference, vol 28. Cockburn A (ed) ACM Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Enriquez MJ, MacLean KE (2003) The hapticon editor: a tool in support of haptic communication research. In: Proceedings of Haptics 2003. DIO 10.1109/HAPTIC.2003.1191310Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    MacLean KE, Enriquez MJ (2003) Perceptual design of haptic icons. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2003. Oakley I, O’Modhrain S, Newell F (eds)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Erp JBF, Spapé MMA (2003) Distilling the underlying dimensions of tactile melodies. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2003. Oakley I, O’Modhrain S, Newell F (eds)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oakley I, McGee MR, Brewster S, Gray P (2000) Putting the feel in ‘look and feel’. In: Proceedings of CHI 2000, ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/332040.332467Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Toney A, Mulley B, Thomas BH, Piekarski W (2003) Social weight: designing to minimise the social consequences arising from technology use by the mobile professional. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 7:309–320 DOI 10.1007/s00779-003-0245-8Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Erp JBF, van Veen HAHC (2003) A multi-purpose tactile vest for astronauts in the International Space Station. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2003. Oakley I, O’Modhrain S, Newell F (eds)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Erp JBF (2005) Presenting directions with a vibrotactile torso display. Ergonomics 48:302–313 DOI 10.1080/0014013042000327670Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stone RJ (2001) Haptic feedback: a brief history from telepresence to virtual reality. In: Lecture notes in computer science: vol 2058, proceedings of the first international workshop on haptic human-computer interaction. Brewster S, Murray-Smith R (eds) Springer, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Epstein W, Hughes B, Schneider S, Bach-y-Rita P (1986) Is there anything out there? A study of distal attribution in response to vibrotactile stimulation. Perception 15:275–284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Loomis JM (1992) Distal attribution and presence. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ 1:113–119Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Holland KL, Williams II RL, Conatser Jr. RR, Howell JN, Cade DL (2004) The implementation and evaluation of a virtual haptic back. Virtual Real 7:94–102 DOI 10.1007/s10055-003-0118-5Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hoffman HG, Garcia-Palacios A, Carlin A, Furness III TA, Botella-Arbona C (2003) Interfaces that heal: coupling real and virtual objects to treat spider phobia. Int J Hum Comput Interact 16:283–300 DOI 10.1207/S15327590IJHC1602_08Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Srinivasan MA, Basdogan C (1997) Haptics in virtual reality: taxonomy, research status, and challenges. Comput Graph 21:393–404 DOI 10.1016/S0097-8493(97)00030-7Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    IJsselsteijn WA (2004) Presence in depth. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    IJsselsteijn WA, Reiner M (2004) On the importance of reliable real-time sensorimotor dependencies for establishing telepresence. In: Proceedings of Presence 2004. Alcañiz Raya M, Solaz BR (eds)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reiner M (2004) The role of haptics in immersive telecommunication environments. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 14:392–401 DOI 10.1109/TCSVT.2004.823399Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Basdogan C, Ho C, Srinivasan MA, Slater M (2000) An experimental study on the role of touch in shared visual environments. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7:443–460 DOI 10.1145/365058.365082Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sallnäs E, Rassmus-Gröhn K, Sjöström C (2000) Supporting presence in collaborative environments by haptic force feedback. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7:461–476 DOI 10.1145/365058.365086Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schiff W, Foulke E (eds) (1982) Tactual perception: a sourcebook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Goffman E (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life rev edn. Doubleday, NYGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Thayer S (1982) Social touching. In: Tactual perception: a sourcebook. Schiff W, Foulke E (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Field T (2003) Touch. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Montagu A (1986) Touching: the human significance of the skin 3rd edn. Harper and Row, NYGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mead GH, Morris CW (ed) (1934) Mind, self, and society, from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Blumer H, Morrione TJ (ed) (2004) George Herbert Mead and human conduct. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CAGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Burgoon JK (1994) Nonverbal signals. In: Handbook of interpersonal communication 2nd edn. Knapp ML, Miller GR (eds) Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Manusov V, Rodriguez JS (1989) Intentionality behind nonverbal messages: a perceiver’s perspective. J Nonverbal Behav 13:15–24 DOI 10.1007/BF01006470Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Burgoon JK, Newton DA (1991) Applying a social meaning model to relational messages of conversational involvement: comparing participant and observer perspectives. South Commun J 56:96–113Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Burgoon JK, Walther JB, Baesler EJ (1992) Interpretations, evaluations, and consequences of interpersonal touch. Hum Commun Res 19:237–263Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Burgoon JK (1991) Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. J Nonverbal Behav 15:233–259 DOI 10.1007/BF00986924Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Burgoon JK, Walther JB (1990) Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Hum Commun Res 17:232–265Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Floyd K (1999) All touches are not created equal: effects of form and duration on observers’ interpretations of an embrace. J Nonverbal Behav 23:283–299 DOI 10.1023/A:1021602926270Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Henley NM (1973) Status and sex: some touching observations. Bulletin of the Psychon Soc 2:91–93Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Goffman E (1961) Encounters: two studies in the sociology of interaction. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, INGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Jourard SM, Rubin JE (1968) Self-disclosure and touching: a study of two modes of interpersonal encounter and their inter-relation. J Humanist Psychol 8:39–48Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fisher JD, Rytting M, Heslin R (1967) Hands touching hands: affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry 39:416–421Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hornik J (1992) Tactile stimulation and consumer response. J Consu Res 19:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Patterson ML, Powell JL, Lenihan MG (1986) Touch, compliance, and interpersonal affect. J Nonverbal Behav 10:41–50 DOI 10.1007/BF00987204Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Guéguen N (2002) Kind of touch and compliance with a request. Stud Psychol 44:167–172Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kleinke CL (1977) Compliance to a request made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings. J Exp Soc Psychol 13:18–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nannberg JC, Hansen CH (1994) Post-compliance touch: an incentive for task performance. J Soc Psychol 134:301–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Goldman M, Fordyce J (1983) Prosocial behavior as affected by eye contact, touch and voice expression. J Soc Psychol 121:125–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Guéguen N, Fisher-Lokou J (2003) Tactile contact and spontaneous help: an evaluation in a natural setting. J Soc Psychol 143:785–787PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Paulsell S, Goldman M (1984) The effect of touching different body areas on prosocial behavior. J Soc Psychol 122:269–273Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Guéguen N (2002) Touch, awareness of touch and compliance with a request. Percept Mot Skills 95:355–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Guéguen N (2004) Nonverbal encouragement of participation in a course: the effect of touching. Soc Psychol Educ 7:89–98 DOI 10.1023/B:SPOE.0000010691.30834.14Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Guéguen N, Jacob C (2005) The effect of touch on tipping: an evaluation in a French bar. Int J Hospitality Manage 24:295–299 DOI 10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.06.004Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kaufman D, Mahoney JM (1999) The effects of waitresses’ touch on alcohol consumption in dyads. J Soc Psychol 139:261–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley SD (eds) American Psychological Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manage Sci 32:554–571Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Biocca F, Harms C, Burgoon JK (2003) Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ 12:456–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hoyt CL, Blascovich J, Swinth KR (2003) Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 12:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Blascovich J (2002) A theoretical model of social influence for increasing the utility of collaborative virtual environments. In: Proceedings of CVE 2002. ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/571878.571883Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Brave S, Dahley A (1997) InTouch: a medium for haptic interpersonal communication. In: Extended abstracts of CHI 1997. ACM Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Chang A, O’Modhrain S, Jacob R, Gunther E, Hiroshi I (2002) ComTouch: design of a vibrotactile communication device. In: Proceedings of DIS 2002. ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/778712.778755Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Chang A, Kanji Z, Ishii H (2001) Designing touch-based communication devices. In: Proceedings of Workshop No. 14: Universal design: towards universal access in the information society, organized in the context of CHI 2001, March 31–April 5, 2001, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Rovers AF, van Essen HA (2004) Design and evaluation of hapticons for enriched instant messaging. In: Proceedings of EuroHaptics 2004. Buss M, Fritschi M, Esen H. (eds)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Rovers AF, van Essen HA (2004) HIM: a framework for haptic instant messaging. In: Extended abstracts of CHI 2004. ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/985921.986052Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Rovers AF, van Essen HA (2005) FootIO: design and evaluation of a device to enable foot interaction over a computer network. In: Proceedings of WHC 2005. DOI 10.1109/WHC.2005.56Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    van Essen HA, Rovers AF (2005) Layered protocols approach to analyze haptic communication over a network. In: Proceedings of WHC 2005. DOI 10.1109/WHC.2005.85Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Chan A, MacLean K, McGrenere J (2005) Learning and identifying haptic icons under workload. In: Proceedings of WHC 2005. DOI 10.1109/WHC.2005.86Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    DiSalvo C, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Montgomery E (2003) The Hug: an exploration of robotic form for intimate communication. In: Proceedings of RO-MAN 2003. DOI 10.1109/ROMAN.2003.1251879Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Gemperle F, DiSalvo C, Forlizzi J, Yonkers W (2003) The Hug: a new form for communication. In: Proceedings of DUX 2003. ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/997078.997103Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Mueller F, Vetere F, Gibbs MR, Kjeldskov J, Pedell S, Howard S (2005) Hug over a distance. In: Extended abstracts of CHI 2005. ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/1056808.1056994Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of CHI 1997. Pemberton S (ed) ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/258549.258715Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Brave S, Ishii H, Dahley A (1998) Tangible interface for remote collaboration and communication. In: Proceedings of CSCW 1998. ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/289444.289491 Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Tollmar K, Junestrand S, Torgny O (2000) Virtual living together: a design framework for new communication media. In: Proceedings of DIS 2000. Boyarski D, Kellogg WA (eds) ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/347642.347670Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Gaver B (2002) Provocative awareness. Comput Support Coop Work 11:475–493 DOI 10.1023/A:1021277326673Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    IJsselsteijn WA, van Baren J, van Lanen F (2003) Staying in touch: social presence and connectedness through synchronous and asynchronous communication media. In: Human-computer interaction: vol 2, theory and practice part II. Stephanidis C, Jacko J (eds) Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Shanken EA (2000) Tele-agency: telematics, telerobotics, and the art of meaning. Art J 59(2):64–77Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Fogg BJ, Cutler LD, Arnold P, Eisbach C (1998) HandJive: a device for interpersonal entertainment. In: Proceedings of CHI 1998. Atwood ME, Karat C, Lund A, Coutaz J, Karat J (eds) ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/274644.274653Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Dobson K, Boyd D, Ju W, Donath J, Ishii H (2001) Creating visceral personal and social interactions in mediated spaces. In: Extended abstracts of CHI 2001. ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/634067.634160Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Hansson R, Skog T (2001) The LoveBomb: encouraging the communication of emotions in public spaces. In: Extended abstracts of CHI 2001. ACM Press, NY. DOI 10.1145/634067.634319Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Oakley I, O’Modhrain S (2002) Contact IM: exploring asynchronous touch over distance. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2002, November 16–20, 2002, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Strong R, Gaver B (1996) Feather, Scent and Shaker: supporting simple intimacy. Short paper presentation at CSCW 1996, November 16–20, 1996, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    McGee K, Harrup A (2003) Contact expressions for touching technologies. In: Proceedings of COSIGN 2003. Mitchell G (ed) University of Teesside, Teesside, UKGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Alhalabi MO, Horiguchi S (2001) Tele-Handshake: a cooperative haptic shared virtual environment. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2001. Baber C, Faint M, Wall S, Wing AM (eds)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Oakley I, Brewster SA, Gray PD (2000) Communicating with feeling. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2058. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Haptic Human-Computer Interaction. Brewster SA, Murray-Smith R (eds) ACM Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Oakley I, Brewster SA, Gray P (2001) Can you feel the force? An investigation of haptic collaboration in shared editors. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2001. Baber C, Faint M, Wall S, Wing AM (eds)Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Gumtau S (2005) Tactile semiotics: the meanings of touch explored with low-tech prototypes. In: Proceedings of WHC 2005. DOI 10.1109/WHC.2005.124Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Brown LM, Brewster SA, Purchase HC (2005) A first investigation into the effectiveness of tactons. In: Proceedings of WHC 2005. DOI 10.1109/WHC.2005.6Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Heslin R, Nguyen TD, Nguyen ML (1983) Meaning of touch: the case of touch from a stranger or same sex person. J Nonverbal Behav 7:147–157 DOI 10.1007/BF00986945Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Floyd K (2000) Affectionate same-sex touch: the influence of homophobia on observers’ perceptions. J Soc Psychol 140:774–788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Loomis JM, Blascovich JJ, Beall AC (1999) Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 31:557–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    de Kort YAW, IJsselsteijn WA, Kooijmans J, Schuurmans Y (2003) Virtual environments as a research tool for environmental psychology: a study of the comparability of real and virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ 12:360–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756 DOI 10.1038/35784Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    IJsselsteijn WA, de Kort YAW, Haans A (2005) Is this my hand I see before me? The rubber hand illusion in reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality. In: Proceedings of Presence 2005. Slater M (ed) University College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    van Baren J, IJsselsteijn WA, Markopoulos P, Romero N, de Ruyter B (2004) Measuring affective benefits and costs of awareness systems supporting intimate social networks. In: CTIT workshop proceedings series: vol 2, Proceedings of SID 2004. Nijholt A, Nishida T (eds)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Loomis JM (2003) Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29:819–833 DOI 10.1177/0146167203029007002Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Sherrington C (1961) The integrative action of the nervous system 2nd edn. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Watzlawick P, Bavelas JB, Jackson DD (1967) Pragmatics of human communication: a study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. Norton, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Technology Interaction GroupEindhoven University of Technology, IPO 1.26EindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations