Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Audio-Visual Stimuli Change not Only Robot’s Hug Impressions but Also Its Stress-Buffering Effects

Abstract

This paper describes how audio and visual stimuli during a robot’s hug change its perceived impressions and stress-buffering effects. In human science literature, the perceived gender influences the impressions of touch interactions, including hugs. In this study we investigate whether the perceived gender of an interacting agent controlled by audio-visual stimuli affects the influence of positive hugs like a stress-buffering effect. We used a system called Metahug that integrates a robot and a virtual reality application and prepared both female- and male-appearance agents and experimentally investigated the audio-visual effects for human–robot hug interaction. Our results showed that the robot’s hug impressions were significantly different based on the agents’ genders. Moreover, the participants reported significantly lower tension in a stressful task when they hugged an opposite-gender-appearance agent compared to a same-gender-appearance agent. Our results suggest that the Metahug system can change both the impressions of a robot’s hug and stress-buffering effects of the hug by altering the audio and visual stimuli of the virtual reality application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. 1.

    Shiomi M, Hagita N (2017) Do Audio-Visual Stimuli Change Hug Impressions? In: Kheddar A, Yoshida E, Ge SS, et al (eds) Social robotics: proceedings of 9th international conference, ICSR 2017, Tsukuba, Japan, November 22–24. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 345–354

  2. 2.

    Nourbakhsh IR, Kunz C, Willeke T (2003)The mobot museum robot installations: a five year experiment. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. (IROS 2003), pp 3636–3641

  3. 3.

    Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Interactive Humanoid Robots for a Science Museum. IEEE Intell Syst 2:25–32

  4. 4.

    Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971

  5. 5.

    Shiomi M, Kanda T, Howley I, Hayashi K, Hagita N (2015) Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? Int J Soc Robot 7(5):641–652

  6. 6.

    Gross H-M, Böhme H-J, Schröter C, Mueller S, König A, Martin C, Merten M, Bley A (2008) Shopbot: progress in developing an interactive mobile shopping assistant for everyday use. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 2008. SMC 2008, pp 3471–3478

  7. 7.

    Satake S, Hayashi K, Nakatani K, Kanda T (2015) Field trial of an information-providing robot in a shopping mall. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 1832–1839

  8. 8.

    Grewen KM, Anderson BJ, Girdler SS, Light KC (2003) Warm partner contact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity. Behav Med 29(3):123–130

  9. 9.

    Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Turner RB, Doyle WJ (2015) Does hugging provide stress-buffering social support? A study of susceptibility to upper respiratory infection and illness. Psychol Sci 26(2):135–147

  10. 10.

    Jakubiak BK, Feeney BC (2016) Keep in touch: the effects of imagined touch support on stress and exploration. J Exp Soc Psychol 65:59–67

  11. 11.

    Gallace A, Spence C (2010) The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34(2):246–259

  12. 12.

    Light KC, Grewen KM, Amico JA (2005) More frequent partner hugs and higher oxytocin levels are linked to lower blood pressure and heart rate in premenopausal women. Biol Psychol 69(1):5–21

  13. 13.

    Field T (2010) Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: a review. Dev Rev 30(4):367–383

  14. 14.

    Yu R, Hui E, Lee J, Poon D, Ng A, Sit K, Ip K, Yeung F, Wong M, Shibata T (2015) Use of a therapeutic, socially assistive pet robot (PARO) in improving mood and stimulating social interaction and communication for people with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 4(2)

  15. 15.

    Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Shinozawa K, Matsumura R, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2016) Does a robot’s touch encourage human effort? Int J Soc Robot 9:5–15

  16. 16.

    Sumioka H, Nakae A, Kanai R, Ishiguro H (2013) Huggable communication medium decreases cortisol levels. Sci Rep 3:3034

  17. 17.

    Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2017) A hug from a robot encourages prosocial behavior. In: 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN)

  18. 18.

    Stier DS, Hall JA (1984) Gender differences in touch: an empirical and theoretical review. J Pers Soc Psychol 47(2):440

  19. 19.

    Evans JA (2002) Cautious caregivers: gender stereotypes and the sexualization of men nurses’ touch. J Adv Nurs 40(4):441–448

  20. 20.

    Goldstein P, Weissman-Fogel I, Dumas G, Shamay-Tsoory SG (2018) Brain-to-brain coupling during handholding is associated with pain reduction. In: Proceedings of the national academy of sciences

  21. 21.

    Ebesu Hubbard AS, Tsuji AA, Williams C, Seatriz V (2003) Effects of touch on gratuities received in same-gender and cross-gender dyads. J Appl Soc Psychol 33(11):2427–2438

  22. 22.

    Fukuda H, Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Ueda K (2012) Midas touch’in human-robot interaction: evidence from event-related potentials during the ultimatum game. In: 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 131–132

  23. 23.

    Nakagawa K, Shiomi M, Shinozawa K, Matsumura R, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2012) Effect of robot’s whispering behaviour on people’s motivation. Int J Soc Robot 5(1):5–16

  24. 24.

    Hirano T, Shiomi M, Iio T, Kimoto M, Tanev I, Shimohara K, Hagita N (2017) How do communication cues change impressions of human-robot touch interaction? Int J Soc Robot 10:21–31

  25. 25.

    Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2017) A hug from a robot encourages prosocial behavior. In: 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 418–423

  26. 26.

    Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2017) A robot that encourages self-disclosure by hug. In: Kheddar A, Yoshida E, Ge SS, et al. (eds) Social robotics: proceedings of 9th international conference, ICSR 2017, Tsukuba, Japan, November 22–24. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 324–333

  27. 27.

    Shiomi M, Minato T, Ishiguro H (2017) Subtle reaction and response time effects in human-robot touch interaction. In: International conference on social robotics, pp 242–251

  28. 28.

    Willemse CJAM, Toet A, van Erp JBF (2017) Affective and behavioral responses to robot-initiated social touch: toward understanding the opportunities and limitations of physical contact in human-robot interaction. Frontiers in ICT, vol 4, no. 12

  29. 29.

    Powers A, Kiesler S (2006) The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction, pp 218–225

  30. 30.

    Ghazali AS, Ham J, Barakova EI, Markopoulos P (2018) Effects of robot facial characteristics and gender in persuasive human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol 5, no 73

  31. 31.

    Siegel M, Breazeal C, Norton MI (2009) Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IROS 2009, pp 2563–2568

  32. 32.

    Suzuki K, Yokoyama M, Kionshita Y, Mochizuki T, Yamada T, Sakurai S, Narumi T, Tanikawa T, Hirose M (2016) Gender-impression modification enhances the effect of mediated social touch between persons of the same gender. Augment Hum Res 1(1):1–11

  33. 33.

    Bailenson JN, Yee N (2008) Virtual interpersonal touch: haptic interaction and copresence in collaborative virtual environments. Multimed Tools Appl 37(1):5–14

  34. 34.

    Tremblay L, Roy-Vaillancourt M, Chebbi B, Bouchard S, Daoust M, Dénommée J, Thorpe M (2016) Body image and anti-fat attitudes: an experimental study using a haptic virtual reality environment to replicate human touch. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 19(2):100–106

  35. 35.

    Birkett MA (2011) the trier social stress test protocol for inducing psychological stress. J Vis Exp 56:3238

  36. 36.

    Creswell JD, Welch WT, Taylor SE, Sherman DK, Gruenewald TL, Mann T (2005) Affirmation of personal values buffers neuroendocrine and psychological stress responses. Psychol Sci 16(11):846–851

  37. 37.

    Hellhammer J, Schubert M (2012) The physiological response to trier social stress test relates to subjective measures of stress during but not before or after the test. Psychoneuroendocrinology 37(1):119–124

  38. 38.

    Leite I, Henriques R, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Sensors in the wild: Exploring electrodermal activity in child-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pp 41–48

  39. 39.

    Perugia G, Rodríguez-Martín D, Boladeras MD, Mallofré AC, Barakova E, Rauterberg M (2017) Electrodermal activity: explorations in the psychophysiology of engagement with social robots in dementia. In: IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN2017), pp 1248–1254

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JST CREST Grant Number JPMJCR18A1, Japan.

Author information

Correspondence to Masahiro Shiomi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This paper is an extended version of a previous work of Shiomi et al. [1] and contains additional references, experiment and discussions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shiomi, M., Hagita, N. Audio-Visual Stimuli Change not Only Robot’s Hug Impressions but Also Its Stress-Buffering Effects. Int J of Soc Robotics (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00530-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hug interaction
  • Human–robot touch interaction
  • Virtual reality