Simulating Affective Touch: Using a Vibrotactile Array to Generate Pleasant Stroking Sensations

  • Gijs Huisman
  • Aduén Darriba Frederiks
  • Jan B. F. van Erp
  • Dirk K. J. Heylen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9775)

Abstract

Gentle stroking touches are rated most pleasant when applied at a velocity of between 1–10 cm/s. Such touches are considered highly relevant in social interactions. Here, we investigate whether stroking sensations generated by a vibrotactile array can produce similar pleasantness responses, with the ultimate goal of using this type of haptic display in technology mediated social touch. A study was conducted in which participants received vibrotactile stroking stimuli of different velocities and intensities, applied to their lower arm. Results showed that the stimuli were perceived as continuous stroking sensations in a straight line. Furthermore, pleasantness ratings for low intensity vibrotactile stroking followed an inverted U-curve, similar to that found in research into actual stroking touches. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Affective touch CT afferents Vibrotactile stimuli Mediated social touch 

References

  1. 1.
    Ackerley, R., Wasling, H.B., Liljencrantz, J., Olausson, H., Johnson, R.D., Wessberg, J.: Human C-tactile afferents are tuned to the temperature of a skin-stroking caress. J. Neurosci. 34(8), 2879–2883 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Björnsdotter, M., Löken, L., Olausson, H., Vallbo, K., Wessberg, J.: Somatotopic organization of gentle touch processing in the posterior insular cortex. J. Neurosci. 29(29), 9314–9320 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burtt, H.: Tactual illusions of movements. J. Exp. Psychol. 2, 371–385 (1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chatterjee, S., Hadi, A.S.: Regression Analysis by Example. Wiley, New York (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Essick, G.K., McGlone, F., Dancer, C., Fabricant, D., Ragin, Y., Phillips, N., Jones, T., Guest, S.: Quantitative assessment of pleasant touch. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 34(2), 192–203 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Francis, S., Rolls, E., Bowtell, R., McGlone, F., ODoherty, J., Browning, A., Clare, S., Smith, E.: The representation of pleasant touch in the brain and its relationship with taste and olfactory areas. Neuroreport 10(3), 453–459 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Funke, F., Reips, U.D.: Why semantic differentials in web-based research should be made from visual analogue scales and not from 5-point scales. Field Methods 24(3), 310–327 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geldard, F.A.: Saltation in somesthesis. Psychol. Bulletin 92(1), 136–175 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haans, A., de Bruijn, R., IJsselsteijn, W.: A virtual midas touch? Touch, compliance, and confederate bias in mediated communication. J. Nonverbal Behav. 38(3), 301–311 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haans, A., IJsselsteijn, W.: Mediated social touch: a review of current research and future directions. Virtual Reality 9(2–3), 149–159 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hertenstein, M.J., Verkamp, J.M., Kerestes, A.M., Holmes, R.M.: The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: a review and synthesis of the empirical research. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 132(1), 5–94 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huisman, G., Frederiks, A.D., Van Dijk, E., Heylen, D., Kröse, B.: The TaSST: tactile sleeve for social touch. In: Proceedings of World Haptics Conference 2013, pp. 211–216. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huisman, G., Kolkmeier, J., Heylen, D.: With us or against us: simulated social touch by virtual agents in a cooperative or competitive setting. In: Bickmore, T., Marsella, S., Sidner, C. (eds.) IVA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8637, pp. 204–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Israr, A., Poupyrev, I.: Tactile brush: drawing on skin with a tactile grid display. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, pp. 2019–2028. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kandel, E.R., Schwartz, J.H., Jessell, T.M., Siegelbaum, S.A., Hudspeth, A.: Principles of Neural Science. McGraw-Hill Medical, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langford, N., Hall, R.J., Monty, R.A.: Cutaneous perception of a track produced by a moving point across the skin. J. Exp. Psychol. 97(1), 59–63 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levine, T.R., Hullett, C.R.: Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Hum. Commun. Res. 28(4), 612–625 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Löken, L.S., Wessberg, J., McGlone, F., Olausson, H.: Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nat. Neurosci. 12(5), 547–548 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGlone, F., Olausson, H., Boyle, J.A., Jones-Gotman, M., Dancer, C., Guest, S., Essick, G.: Touching and feeling: differences in pleasant touch processing between glabrous and hairy skin in humans. Eur. J. Neurosci. 35(11), 1782–1788 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGlone, F., Wessberg, J., Olausson, H.: Discriminative and affective touch: sensing and feeling. Neuron 82(4), 737–755 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morrison, I., Bjrnsdotter, M., Olausson, H.: Vicarious responses to social touch in posterior insular cortex are tuned to pleasant caressing speeds. J. Neurosci. 31(26), 9554–9562 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morrison, I., Löken, L., Olausson, H.: The skin as a social organ. Exp. Brain Res. 204, 305–314 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park, Y.W., Bae, S.H., Nam, T.J.: How do couples use cheektouch over phone calls? In: Proceedings of CHI 2012, pp. 763–766. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Piateski, E., Jones, L.: Vibrotactile pattern recognition on the arm and torso. In: Proceedings of World Haptics Conference 2005, pp. 90–95. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schirmer, A., Teh, K.S., Wang, S., Vijayakumar, R., Ching, A., Nithianantham, D., Escoffier, N., Cheok, A.D.: Squeeze me, but dont tease me: human and mechanical touch enhance visual attention and emotion discrimination. Soc. Neurosci. 6(3), 219–230 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seifi, H., MacLean, K.: A first look at individuals’ affective ratings of vibrations. In: Proceedings of World Haptics Conference 2013, pp. 605–610 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tang, F., McMahan, R.P., Ragan, E.D., Allen, T.T.: A modified tactile brush algorithm for complex touch gestures. In: 2015 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), pp. 295–296. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsalamlal, M.Y., Ouarti, N., Martin, J.C., Ammi, M.: EmotionAir: perception of emotions from air jet based tactile stimulation. In: Proceedings of ACII 2013, pp. 215–220. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Erp, J.B.: Guidelines for the use of vibro-tactile displays in human computer interaction. In: Proceedings of EuroHaptics 2002, vol. 2002, pp. 18–22 (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Erp, J.B., Toet, A.: Social touch in human-computer interaction. Front. Digital Hum. 2, 2 (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verrillo, R.: Temporal summation in vibrotactile sensitivity. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 37(5), 843–846 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gijs Huisman
    • 1
  • Aduén Darriba Frederiks
    • 2
  • Jan B. F. van Erp
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dirk K. J. Heylen
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Digital Life CentreAmsterdam University of Applied SciencesAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Perceptual and Cognitive Systems, TNOSoesterbergThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations