International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 187–193 | Cite as

Interaction with a Moving Object Affects One’s Perception of Its Animacy



Sometimes we regard just an artifact as a lifelike one and other times not; it is considered to depend on how we deal and interact with the artifact. We experimentally examined whether differences in the manner of interacting with a moving robot (operating it or only observing its movements) influenced one’s perception of the robot’s animacy and, if so, whether the strength of this influence depended on the apparent goal-directedness of the robot’s movements. We found that people only observing the robot perceived it most animated when its movements seemed most goal-directed but that people controlling the robot perceived it more animated when 1/f noise made its movements seem less goal-directed. Our perception of a moving object’s animacy thus depends on whether we interact with the object or just observe it while someone else interacts with it. This result suggests that robotics researchers should design how a robot interacts with its users, in order to elicit higher degree of animacy perception for the robot.


Animacy perception Moving robot Human-robot interaction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Michotte A (1963) The perception of causality. Basic Books, New York Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Premack D (1990) The infant’s theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition 36:1–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baron-Cohen S (1995) Mindblindness. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57:243–249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tremoulet PD, Feldman J (2000) The influence of spatial context and the role of intentionality in the interpretation of animacy from motion. Perception 68:1047–1058 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tremoulet PD, Feldman J (2006) The influence of spatial context and the role of intentionality in the interpretation of animacy from motion. Percept Psychophys 68:1047–1058 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dittrich W, Les S (1994) Visual perception of intentional motions. Perception 23:253–268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Poulin-Doubois D, Lepage A, Ferland D (1996) Infants concept of animacy. Cogn Dev 11:19–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Legerstee M (2000) Precursors to the development of intention at 6 months: understanding people and their actions. Dev Psychol 36:627–634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arita A, Hiraki K, Kanda K, Ishiguro H (2005) Can we talk to robots? Ten-month-old infants expected interactive humanoid robots to be talked to by persons. Cognition 95:B49–B57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartneck C, Kulic D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee KM, Park NH, Song H (2005) Can a robot be perceived as a developing creature? Hum Commun Res 31:538–563 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bartneck C, Kanda T, Mubbin O, Mahmud A (2009) Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence? Int J Soc Robot 1:195–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Okita SY, Schwartz DL (2006) Young children’s understanding of animacy and entertainment robots. Int J Hum Robot 3:393–412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kozima H, Michalowski MP, Nakagawa C (2009) Keepon: a playful robot for research, therapy, and entertainment. Int J Soc Robot 1:3–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaw-Garlock G (2009) Looking forward to sociable robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:249–260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wagenmakers EJ, Farrell S, Ratcliff R (2005) Human cognition and a pile of sand: a discussion on serial correlations and self-organized criticality. J Exp Psychol Gen 134:108–116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gilden DL (2001) Cognitive emissions of 1/f noise. Psychol Rev 108:33–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (2006) e-puck educational robot.
  20. 20.
    Opfer JE (2002) Identifying living and sentient kinds from dynamic information: the case of goal-directed versus aimless autonomous movement in conceptual change. Cognition 86:97–122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richards DD, Siegler RS (1986) Children’s understandings of the attributes of life. J Exp Child Psychol 42:1–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Braitenberg V (1984) Vehicles: experiments in synthetic psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wheatley T, Milleville SG, Martin A (2007) Understanding animate agent: distinct roles for the social network and mirror system. Psychol Sci 18:469–474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keysers C, Perrett DI (2004) Demystifying social cognition: a Hebbian perspective. Trends Cogn Sci 8:501–507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schultz J, Friston KJ, O’Doherty J, Wolpert DM, Frith CD (2005) Activation in posterior superior temporal sulcus parallels parameter inducing the percept of animacy. Neuron 45:625–635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schultz J, Imamizu H, Kawato M, Frith CD (2004) Activation of the human superior temporal gyrus during observation of goal attribution by intentional objects. J Cogn Neurosci 16:1695–1705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Blakemore SJ, Boyer P, Pachot-Clouard M, Meltzoff A, Segebarth C, Decety J (2003) The detection of contingency and animacy from simple animations in the human brain. Cereb Cortex 13: 837–844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adolphs R (2003) Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci 1:4165–4178 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:169–192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carr L, Iacoboni M, Dubeau M-C, Mazziotta JC, Lenzi GL (2003) Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: a relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 100:5497–5502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gallese V, Goldman A (1998) Mirror neurons and simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends Cogn Sci 2:493–501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson S, Booth A, O’Heam K (2001) Inferring the goals of nonhuman agent. Cogn Dev 16:637–656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miyashita T, Ishiguro H (2004) Human-like natural behavior generation based on involuntary motions for humanoid robots. Robot Auton Syst 48:203–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moss F, Wiesenfeld K (1995) The benefits of background noise. Sci Am 273:50–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nozaki D, Mar D, Grigg P, Collins JJ (1999) Effect of colored noise on stochastic resonance in sensory neurons. Phys Rev Lett 82:2402–2405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kiss LB, Gingl Z, Marton Z, Kertesz J, Moss F, Schmera G, Bulsara A (1993) 1/f noise in systems showing stochastic resonance. J Stat Phys 70:451–462 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ishiguro I (2005) Android science: toward a new cross-interdisciplinary framework. Proc Cogsci2005, workshop, pp 1–6 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mori M (1970) Bukimi no tani (uncanny valley). Energy 7:33–35 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General System StudiesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations