Subtle Reaction and Response Time Effects in Human-Robot Touch Interaction

  • Masahiro ShiomiEmail author
  • Takashi Minato
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10652)


This paper reports subtle reactions and response time effects in human-robot touch interaction with an android named ERICA whose has a human-like appearance. People usually prefer a quick response from interaction targets, regardless whether the targets are computer systems or robots. One famous guideline to design response timing is called the “two second rule,” which argues that a system should not take more than two seconds to respond to input. To investigate whether such a response time design is applicable to human-robot touch interactions, we investigated several response times when a robot is touched by people. We also implemented subtle reactions for a robot to being touched and investigated whether they increased the robot’s human-likeness. Our experimental results with 12 participants showed that the robot’s perceived human-likeness increased because it showed a subtle reaction to being touched. The results also showed that people would prefer quick responses to their touch interactions. In this study, zero seconds showed significantly higher preference than two seconds, but one second did not show significant differences with two seconds.


Human-robot interaction Touch Subtle reaction Reaction time 



This research work was supported by JST ERATO Ishiguro Symbiotic Human Robot Interaction Project (Grant Number: JPMJER1401), and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP15H05322 and JP16K12505.


  1. 1.
    Goodman, T., Spence, R.: The effect of system response time on interactive computer aided problem solving. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 12(3), 100–104 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guynes, J.L.: Impact of system response time on state anxiety. Commun. ACM 31(3), 342–347 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller, R.B.: Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. In: Proceedings of the December 9–11, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I, pp. 267–277 (1968)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shiwa, T., Kanda, T., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: How Quickly should a communication robot respond? delaying strategies and habituation effects. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(2), 141–155 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wada, K., Asano, Y.: Investigation of appropriate response time for an animal type robot. In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 331–334 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Funakoshi, K., Kobayashi, K., Nakano, M., Yamada, S., Kitamura, Y., Tsujino, H.: Smoothing human-robot speech interactions by using a blinking-light as subtle expression. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 293–296 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mathur, M.B., Reichling, D.B.: Navigating a social world with robot partners: a quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley. Cognition 146, 22–32 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shiomi, M., Nakagawa, K., Hagita, N.: Design of a gaze behavior at a small mistake moment for a robot. Interact. Stud. 14(3), 317–328 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gharbi, M., Paubel, P.V., Clodic, A., Carreras, O., Alami, R., Cellier, J.M.: Toward a better understanding of the communication cues involved in a human-robot object transfer. In: 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 319–324 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glas, D.F., Minato, T., Ishi, C.T., Kawahara, T., Ishiguro, H.: Erica: the erato intelligent conversational android. In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 22–29 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Erp, J.B.F., Toet, A.: Social Touch in Human–Computer Interaction. Front. Dig. Humanit. 2(2), 1–15 (2015). doi: 10.3389/fdigh.2015.00002 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, T.L., King, C.-H.A., Thomaz, A.L., Kemp, C.C.: An investigation of responses to robot-initiated touch in a nursing context. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(1), 141–161 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shiomi, M., Nakagawa, K., Shinozawa, K., Matsumura, R., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: Does a robot’s touch encourage human effort? Int. J. Soc. Robot. 9, 5–15 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shiomi, M., Nakata, A., Kanbara, M., Hagita, N.: A hug from a robot encourages prosocial behavior. In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (2017, to appear)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirano, T., Shiomi, M., Iio, T., Kimoto, M., Nagashio, T., Tanev, I., Shimohara, K., Hagita, N.: Communication cues in a human-robot touch interaction. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, Biopolis, Singapore, pp. 201–206 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stier, D.S., Hall, J.A.: Gender differences in touch: An empirical and theoretical review. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47(2), 440 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ebesu Hubbard, A.S., Tsuji, A.A., Williams, C., Seatriz, V.: Effects of touch on gratuities received in same-gender and cross-gender dyads. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33(11), 2427–2438 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ATR-IRCKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Osaka UniversityToyonakaJapan

Personalised recommendations