Simulated Social Touch in a Collaborative Game

  • Gijs Huisman
  • Jan Kolkmeier
  • Dirk Heylen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8618)


In this paper we present a study in which participants played a collaborative augmented reality game together with two virtual agents, visible in the same augmented reality space. During interaction one of the virtual agents touches the user on the arm, by means of a vibrotactile display. We investigated whether social touch by a virtual agent in a collaborative setting would positively influence the participant’s perception of this touching virtual agent. Results showed that the touching virtual agent was rated higher on affective adjectives than the non-touching agent.


Simulated social touch Touching virtual agent Vibrotactile feedback Augmented reality 



This publication was supported by the Dutch national program COMMIT.


  1. 1.
    App, B., McIntosh, D.N., Reed, C.L., Hertenstein, M.J.: Nonverbal channel use in communication of emotion: how may depend on why. Emotion 11(3), 603–617 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailenson, J.N., Yee, N.: Virtual interpersonal touch: haptic interaction and copresence in collaborative virtual environments. Multimedia Tools Appl. 37(1), 5–14 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailenson, J.N., Yee, N., Patel, K., Beall, A.C.: Detecting digital chameleons. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(1), 66–87 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailenson, J., Yee, N., Brave, S., Merget, D., Koslow, D.: Virtual interpersonal touch: expressing and recognizing emotions through haptic devices. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 22(3), 325–353 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beelen, T., Blaauboer, R., Bovenmars, N., Loos, B., Zielonka, L., van Delden, R., Huisman, G., Reidsma, D.: The art of tug of war: investigating the influence of remote touch on social presence in a distributed rope pulling game. In: Reidsma, D., Katayose, H., Nijholt, A. (eds.) ACE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8253, pp. 246–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bickmore, T.W., Fernando, R., Ring, L., Schulman, D.: Empathic touch by relational agents. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 1(1), 60–71 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bourdin, P., Sanahuja, J.M.T., Moya, C.C., Haggard, P., Slater, M.: Persuading people in a remote destination to sing by beaming there. In: VRST ’13, pp. 123–132. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Camps, J., Tuteleers, C., Stouten, J., Nelissen, J.: A situational touch: how touch affects people’s decision behavior. Soc. Influence 8(4), 237–250 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cramer, H., Kemper, N., Amin, A., Wielinga, B., Evers, V.: give me a hug: the effects of touch and autonomy on people’s responses to embodied social agents. Comput. Anim. Virtual Worlds 20(2–3), 437–445 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ditzen, B., Neumann, I.D., Bodenmann, G., von Dawans, B., Turner, R.A., Ehlert, U., Heinrichs, M.: Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 32(5), 565–574 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gallace, A., Spence, C.: The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 34(2), 246–259 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guadagno, R.E., Cialdini, R.B.: Online persuasion: an examination of gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. Group Dyn.: Theor. Res. Pract. 6(1), 38–51 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guéguen, N., Jacob, C., Boulbry, G.: The effect of touch on compliance with a restaurant’s employee suggestion. Int. J. Hospitality Manage. 26(4), 1019–1023 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haans, A., Bruijn, R., IJsselsteijn, W.: A virtual midas touch? touch, compliance, and confederate bias in mediated communication. J. Nonverbal Behav. 1, 1–11 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haans, A., IJsselsteijn, W.A.: Mediated social touch: a review of current research and future directions. Virtual Reality 9(2–3), 149–159 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haans, A., de Nood, C., IJsselsteijn, W.A.: Investigating response similarities between real and mediated social touch: a first test. In: CHI ’07, ACM, pp. 2405–2410 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hertenstein, M.J., Keltner, D., App, B., Bulleit, B.A., Jaskolka, A.R.: Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion 6(3), 528–33 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morrison, I., Löken, L., Olausson, H.: The skin as a social organ. Exp. Brain Res. 204, 305–314 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nakagawa, K., Shiomi, M., Shinozawa, K., Matsumura, R., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: Effect of robot’s active touch on people’s motivation. In: HRI ’11, ACM, pp. 465–472 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ter Maat, M., Truong, K.P., Heylen, D.: How agents’ turn-taking strategies influence impressions and response behaviors. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 20, 412–430 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Media Interaction GroupUniversity of TwenteEnschedeNetherlands

Personalised recommendations