Advertisement

Cognitive Computation

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 760–774 | Cite as

Minimal Human Design Approach for sonzai-kan Media: Investigation of a Feeling of Human Presence

  • Hidenobu Sumioka
  • Shuichi Nishio
  • Takashi Minato
  • Ryuji Yamazaki
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
Article

Abstract

Even though human-like robotic media give the feeling of being with others and positively affect our physical and mental health, scant research has addressed how much information about a person should be reproduced to enhance the feeling of a human presence. We call this feeling sonzai-kan, which is a Japanese phrase that means the feeling of a presence. We propose a minimal design approach for exploring the requirements to enhance this feeling and hypothesize that it is enhanced if information is presented from at least two different modalities. In this approach, the exploration is conducted by designing sonzai-kan media through exploratory research with the media, their evaluations, and the development of their systems. In this paper, we give an overview of our current work with Telenoid, a teleoperated android designed with our approach, to illustrate how we explore the requirements and how such media impact our quality of life. We discuss the potential advantages of our approach for forging positive social relationships and designing an autonomous agent with minimal cognitive architecture.

Keywords

Human–robot Interaction Minimal design Elderly care Android science 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers. This work has been supported by JST CREST (Core Research of Evolutional Science and Technology) research promotion program “Creation of Human-Harmonized Information Technology for Convivial Society” Research Area.

References

  1. 1.
    House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D, et al. Social relationships and health. Science. 1988;241(4865):540–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen S. Social relationships and health. Am Psychol. 2004;59(8):676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000316.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Brashears ME. Social isolation in America: changes in core discussion networks over two decades. Am Soc Rev. 2006;71(3):353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst. 2003;42(3):143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Imai M, Ono T. Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots. Proc IEEE. 2004;92(11):1839–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ishiguro H. Android science: conscious and subconscious recognition. Connect Sci. 2006;18(4):319–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindblom J, Ziemke T. The social body in motion: cognitive development in infants and androids. Connect Sci. 2006;18(4):333–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shimada M, Ishiguro H. Motion behavior and its influence on human-likeness in an android robot. In Proceedings of the annual conference of the cog. sci. society; 2008. p 2468–2473.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nishio S, Ogawa K, Kanakogi Y, Itakura S, Ishiguro H. Do robot appearance and speech affect people’s attitude? evaluation through the ultimatum game. In Proceedings of international symposium on robot and human interactive communication; 2012, p 809–814.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Hagita N Geminoid: Teleoperated android of an existing person. In Humanoid robots: new developments, I-Tech Education and Publishing; 2007. p 343–352.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Ono T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N. Android as a telecommunication medium with a human-like presence. In Proceedings of international conference. on human-robot interaction; 2007. p 193–200.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N. The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot Autom Mag. 2012;19(2):98–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ernst MO, Bülthoff HH. Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8(4):162–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shams L, Kim R. Crossmodal influences on visual perception. Phys Life Rev. 2010;7(3):269–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giard MH, Peronnet F. Auditory-visual integration during multimodal object recognition in humans: a behavioral and electrophysiological study. J Cogn Neurosci. 1999;11(5):473–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ernst MO, Banks MS. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature. 2002;415(6870):429–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hillis JM, Ernst MO, Banks MS, Landy MS. Combining sensory information: mandatory fusion within, but not between, senses. Science. 2002;298(5598):1627–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Froese T, Suzuki K, Ogai Y, Ikegami T. Using human–computer interfaces to investigate ‘mind-as-it-could-be’ from the first-person perspective. Cogn Comput. 2012;4(3):365–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vogeley K, Bente G. “Artificial humans”: psychology and neuroscience perspectives on embodiment and nonverbal communication. Neural Networks. 2010;23(8):1077–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ogawa K, Nishio S, Koda K, Balistreri G, Watanabe T, Ishiguro H. Exploring the natural reaction of young and aged person with telenoid in a real world. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform. 2011;15(5):592–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nowak K. Defining and differentiating copresence, social presence and presence as transportation. In Presence 2001 4th Annual international workshop; 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao S. Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence: teleoperators and virtual environments. 2003;12(5):445–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Minsky M. Telepresence. Omni. 1980;2(9):45–51.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goffman E. Behavior in public place. Glencoe: The Free Press; 1963.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Short J, Williams E, Christie B. The social psychology of telecommunications. Hoboken: Wiley; 1976.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beer JM, Takayama L. Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: acceptance, benefits, and concerns. In Proceedings of the international conference on human-robot interaction; 2011. p 19–26.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thacker PD. Physician-robot makes the rounds. JAMA, J Am Med Assoc. 2005;293(2):150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee MK, Takayama L. “now, i have a body”: Uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems; 2011, p 33–42.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paulos E, Canny J Prop: personal roving presence. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems; 1998. p 296–303.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tsumaki Y, Fujita Y, Kasai A, Sato C, Nenchev DN, Uchiyama M. Telecommunicator: a novel robot system for human communications. In Proceedings of international workshop on robot and human interactive communication; 2002. p 35–40.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kashiwabara T, Osawa H, Shinozawa K, Imai M. Teroos: a wearable avatar to enhance joint activities. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in Comp. Sys.; 2012. p 2001–2004.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reeves B, Nass C. The media equation: How people treat computers, televisions, and new media as real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Duffy BR. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst. 2003;42(3):177–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Matsumoto N, Fujii H, Okada M. Minimal design for human–agent communication. J AROB. 2006;10(1):49–54.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Osawa H, Mukai J, Imai M. Anthropomorphization framework for human-object communication. J Adv Comp Intell Intell Inform. 2007;11(8):1007–14.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ogata M, Sugiura Y, Osawa H, Imai M. Pygmy: a ring-shaped robotic device that promotes the presence of an agent on human hand. In Proceedings of Asia Pacific conference on Comp. human interaction; 2012. p 85–92.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mehrabian A. Silent messages: implicit communication of emotions and attitudes; 1980.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kendon A. Do gestures communicate? A review. Research Lang Soc Interact. 1994;27(3):175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Scherer KR. Vocal communication of emotion: a review of research paradigms. Speech Commun. 2003;40(1):227–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Perrett DI, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Kieran J, Rowland DA, Edwards R. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav. 1999;20(5):295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Straub I, Nishio S, Ishiguro H. Incorporated identity in interaction with a teleoperated android robot: a case study In Proceedings of international symposium on robot and human interactive communication; 2010, p. 119–124.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yee N, Bailenson J. The Proteus effect: the effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Hum Commun Res. 2007;33(3):271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yamazaki R, Nishio S, Ogawa K, Ishiguro H. Teleoperated android as an embodied communication medium: A case study with demented elderlies in a care facility. In Prof. of Int. symp. on robot and human interactive communication; 2012. p. 1066–1071.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yamazaki R, Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Nørskov M, Ishiguro N, Balistreri G. Social acceptance of a teleoperated android: field study on elderly’s engagement with an embodied communication medium in denmark. In Proceedings of international conference on social robotics; 2012. p. 428–437.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yamazaki R, Nishio S, Ogawa K, Ishiguro H, Matsumura K, Koda K, Fujinami T. How does telenoid affect the communication between children in classroom setting? In Proceedigns of the conference on human factors in computing systems; 2012. p. 351–366.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tanaka K, Nakanishi H, Ishiguro H. Robot conferencing that presents physically embodied body motions enhances social telepresence. In Interaction; 2013. p. 125–132 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kuwamura K, Minato T, Nishio S, Ishiguro H. Personality distortion in communication through teleoperated robots. In Proceedings of international symposium on robot and human interactive communication; 2012. p. 49–54.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wada S. Construction of the big five scales of personality trait terms and concurrent validity with NPI in Japanese. J Psychol. 1996; 67(1): 61–7 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gough H, Heilbrun A. The adjective check list manual. Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sumioka H, Koda K, Nishio S, Minato T, Ishiguro H. Revisiting ancient design of human form for communication avatar: Design considerations from chronological development of dogu. In Proceedings of international symposium on robot and human interactive communication; 2013. p. 726–731.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    MIHO MUSEUM, editor. Dogu, a Cosmos. Hatori Press, Inc., 2012.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kaner S, Bailey D. The power of dogū: Ceramic figures from ancient Japan, 2009. http://my.page-flip.co.uk/?userpath=00000013/00012513/00046136/.
  54. 54.
    Ishi CT, Liu C, Ishiguro H, Hagita N. Speech-driven lip motion generation for tele-operated humanoid robots. Proceedings of international. conference. on auditory-visual speech processing; 2011. p 131–135.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Liu C, Ishi CT, Ishiguro H, Hagita N. Generation of nodding, head tilting and gazing for human-robot speech interaction. Int J Humanoid Robot; 2013, 10(1):1350009(1–19).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Minato T, Sumioka H, Nishio S, Ishiguro H. Studying the influence of handheld robotic media on social communications. In Proceedings of RoMan WS on social robotic telepresence; 2012. p. 15–6.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sakai K, Sumioka H, Minato T, Nishio S, Ishiguro H. Motion design of interactive small humanoid robot with visual illusion. Int J Innov Comput Inform Cont 9(12), 2013. To appear.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fujie Y, Hori M, Yoshimura H, Iwai Y. Emotion transmission by color effects for a teleoperated mobile communication robot. In Proceedings of HRI2013 Workshop on Design of Human Likeness in HRI from uncanny valley to minimal design; 2013. p. 19–25.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Plutchik R. EMOTION: a Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. Harper and Row, 1980.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Minato T, Nishio S, Ishiguro H. Evoking an affection for communication partner by a robotic communication medium. In Proceedings of the international conference. on human-robot interaction, page Demonstration Session D07, 2012.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nakanishi J, Kuwamura K, Minato T, Nishio S, Ishiguro H. Evoking affection for a communication partner by a robotic communication medium. In the First International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (iHAI 2013); 2013. p. III–1–4.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kuwamura K, Sakai K, Minato T, Nishio S, Ishiguro H. Hugvie: A medium that fosters love. In International symposium on robot and human interactive communication; 2013. p. 70–75.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sumioka H, Nakae A, Kanai R, Ishiguro H. Huggable communication medium decreases cortisol levels. Sci. Rep. 3(3034); doi: 10.1038/srep03034, 2013.
  64. 64.
    Nowak KL, Biocca F. The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence. 2003;12(5):481–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Von der Puetten AM, Krämer NC, Gratch J, Kang S. “It doesn’t matter what you are!” Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(6):1641–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kiesler S, Sproull L, Waters K. A prisoner’s dilemma experiment on cooperation with people and human-like computers. J Person Soc Psychol. 1996;70(1):47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rilling JK, Sanfey AG, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. The neural correlates of theory of mind within interpersonal interactions. Neuroimage. 2004;22(4):1694–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A. Matching robot appearance and behaviour to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication; 2003. p 55–60.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nowak KL, Rauh C. The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. J Comput Med Commun. 2006;11(1):153–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Pfeifer R, Scheier C. Understanding intelligence. Cambridge: MIT press; 2001.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Dautenhahn K. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2007;362(1480):679–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hidenobu Sumioka
    • 1
  • Shuichi Nishio
    • 1
  • Takashi Minato
    • 1
  • Ryuji Yamazaki
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Hiroshi Ishiguro LaboratoryAdvanced Telecommunications Research Institute InternationalKeihanna Science CityJapan
  2. 2.Department of Systems InnovationOsaka University Graduate School of Engineering ScienceToyonakaJapan

Personalised recommendations