Semi-autonomous touch method merging robot's autonomous touch and user-operated touch for improving user experience in robot touch.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jul 2024
26 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
30
04
2024
accepted:
18
07
2024
medline:
1
8
2024
pubmed:
1
8
2024
entrez:
31
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The demand for therapeutic robots to alleviate mental health problems is growing. Studies have shown that people's mental health improves when they are touched. Consequently, therapeutic robots are designed to alleviate stress through robot's autonomous touch. However, robot's autonomous touch can sometimes cause discomfort to recipients. This paper proposes a semi-autonomous touch method that merges robot's autonomous touch with user-operated touch to mitigate discomfort while maintaining the sensation of being touched by another person. We conducted an experiment involving 24 participants who were touched on the neck by robots under three conditions: robot's autonomous touch, user-operated touch, and the proposed semi-autonomous touch method condition. Additionally, the study investigated participants' impressions of the robot in each condition. The results showed that semi-autonomous touch condition mitigated discomfort more effectively compared with the robot's autonomous touch method condition. It also enhanced the feeling of being touched by another person entity and suppressed interaction boredom compared with the user-operated touch method condition. Participants reported higher trustworthiness and perceived friendliness in robots utilizing the semi-autonomous touch method compared to those with autonomous touch method condition. These findings indicate that robots featuring the proposed semi-autonomous touch method can provide a comforting experience, leveraging the therapeutic benefits of being touched by another person, and underscore their potential in mental health applications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39085343
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67964-0
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-67964-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17667Subventions
Organisme : JST Moonshot R&D Grant
ID : JPMJMS2011
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Alexopoulos, G. S. Depression in the elderly. The Lancet 365, 1961–1970. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66665-2 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66665-2
Craig, T. K. J. & Boardman, A. P. ABC of mental health: Common mental health problems in primary care. BMJ 314, 1609. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7094.1609 (1997).
doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7094.1609
pubmed: 9186176
pmcid: 2126815
Kroenke, K. & Price, R. K. Symptoms in the community: Prevalence, classification, and psychiatric comorbidity. Arch. Intern. Med. 153, 2474–2480. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1993.00410210102011 (1993).
doi: 10.1001/archinte.1993.00410210102011
pubmed: 8215752
Christiansen, J. et al. Associations of loneliness and social isolation with physical and mental health among adolescents and young adults. Perspect. Public Health 141, 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139211016077 (2021).
doi: 10.1177/17579139211016077
pubmed: 34148462
Hards, E. et al. Loneliness and mental health in children and adolescents with pre-existing mental health problems: A rapid systematic review. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 61, 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12331 (2022).
doi: 10.1111/bjc.12331
pubmed: 34529837
Stiehl, W. et al. Design of a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication), 408–415, (IEEE, Nashville, TN, USA, 2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513813 (2005).
Sefidgar, Y. S. et al. Design and evaluation of a touch-centered calming interaction with a social robot. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 7, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2015.2457893 (2016).
doi: 10.1109/TAFFC.2015.2457893
Hayashi, R. & Kato, S. Psychological effects of physical embodiment in artificial pet therapy. Artif. Life Robot. 22, 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10015-016-0320-7 (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s10015-016-0320-7
Dinesen, B. et al. Use of a social robot (LOVOT) for persons with dementia: Exploratory study. JMIR Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 9, e36505. https://doi.org/10.2196/36505 (2022).
doi: 10.2196/36505
pubmed: 35916689
pmcid: 9379791
Wada, K. & Shibata, T. Robot therapy in a care house: Its sociopsychological and physiological effects on the residents. In Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006, 3966–3971, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2006.1642310 (2006).
Geva, N., Uzefovsky, F. & Levy-Tzedek, S. Touching the social robot PARO reduces pain perception and salivary oxytocin levels. Sci. Rep. 10, 9814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66982-y (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66982-y
pubmed: 32555432
pmcid: 7299999
Weiss, S. J. Effects of differential touch on nervous system arousal of patients recovering from cardiac disease. Heart Lung 19, 474–480 (1990).
pubmed: 2170296
Pepito, J. A. T., Babate, F. J. G. & Dator, W. L. T. The nurses’ touch: An irreplaceable component of caring. Nursing Open 10, 5838–5842. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1860 (2023).
doi: 10.1002/nop2.1860
pubmed: 37255491
pmcid: 10416036
Routasalo, P. & Isola, A. The right to touch and be touched. Nurs. Ethics 3, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/096973309600300209 (1996).
doi: 10.1177/096973309600300209
pubmed: 8717880
Yonezawa, T., Yamazoe, H. & Abe, S. Physical contact using haptic and gestural expressions for ubiquitous partner robot. In 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 5680–5685. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2013.6697179 (2013).
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), 418–423, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172336 (2017).
Willemse, C. J. A. M. & van Erp, J. B. F. Social touch in human–robot interaction: Robot-initiated touches can induce positive responses without extensive prior bonding. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 11, 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0500-9 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s12369-018-0500-9
Hoffmann, L. & Krämer, N. C. The persuasive power of robot touch. Behavioral and evaluative consequences of non-functional touch from a robot. PLoS ONE 16, e0249554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249554 (2021).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249554
pubmed: 33951034
pmcid: 8099132
Shiomi, M., Nakata, A., Kanbara, M. & Hagita, N. Robot reciprocation of hugs increases both interacting times and self-disclosures. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 13, 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00644-x (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s12369-020-00644-x
Hirano, T. et al. How do communication cues change impressions of human–robot touch interaction?. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 10, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0425-8 (2018).
doi: 10.1007/s12369-017-0425-8
Chen, T. L., King, C.-H., Thomaz, A. L. & Kemp, C. C. Touched by a robot: An investigation of subjective responses to robot-initiated touch. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction, 457–464. (ACM, Lausanne Switzerland) https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957818 (2011).
Suvilehto, J. T., Glerean, E., Dunbar, R. I. M., Hari, R. & Nummenmaa, L. Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 13811–13816. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519231112 (2015).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1519231112
pubmed: 26504228
pmcid: 4653180
Etzi, R., Carta, C. & Gallace, A. Stroking and tapping the skin: Behavioral and electrodermal effects. Exp. Brain Res. 236, 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5143-9 (2018).
doi: 10.1007/s00221-017-5143-9
pubmed: 29214391
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F. & Kageki, N. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19, 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 (2012).
doi: 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811
Löffler, D., Dörrenbächer, J. & Hassenzahl, M. The uncanny valley effect in zoomorphic robots: The U-shaped relation between animal likeness and likeability. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, HRI ’20, 261–270, (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA). https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374788 (2020).
Fromme, D. K. et al. Nonverbal behavior and attitudes toward touch. J. Nonverbal Behav. 13, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01006469 (1989).
doi: 10.1007/BF01006469
Jones, S. E. & Brown, B. C. Touch attitudes and behaviors, recollections of early childhood touch, and social self-confidence. J. Nonverbal Behav. 20, 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02281953 (1996).
doi: 10.1007/BF02281953
Webb, A. & Peck, J. Individual differences in interpersonal touch: On the development, validation, and use of the “comfort with interpersonal touch’’ (CIT) scale. J. Consum. Psychol. 25, 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.07.002 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.07.002
Maier, A. et al. Association of childhood maltreatment with interpersonal distance and social touch preferences in adulthood. Am. J. Psychiatry 177, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19020212 (2020).
doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19020212
pubmed: 31416339
Onishi, Y., Sumioka, H. & Shiomi, M. Moffuly-II: A robot that hugs and rubs heads. Int. J. Soc. Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01070-5 (2023).
doi: 10.1007/s12369-023-01070-5
Block, A. E. & Kuchenbecker, K. J. Softness, warmth, and responsiveness improve robot hugs. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 11, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0495-2 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s12369-018-0495-2
Luo, R. C. & Hsieh, K. C. Tapping motion detection incorporate with impedance control of robotics tapotement massage on human tissue. In 2018 IEEE 15th International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control (AMC), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1109/AMC.2019.8371080 (2018).
Ishikura, T. et al. Pleasant stroke touch on human back by a human and a robot. Sensors 23, 1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031136 (2023).
doi: 10.3390/s23031136
pubmed: 36772176
pmcid: 9919452
Dreisoerner, A. et al. Self-soothing touch and being hugged reduce cortisol responses to stress: A randomized controlled trial on stress, physical touch, and social identity. Compr. Psychoneuroendocrinol. 8, 100091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpnec.2021.100091 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.cpnec.2021.100091
pubmed: 35757667
pmcid: 9216399
Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D. M. & Frith, C. D. Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 635–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/2870 (1998).
doi: 10.1038/2870
pubmed: 10196573
Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D. M. & Frith, C. D. The cerebellum contributes to somatosensory cortical activity during self-produced tactile stimulation. NeuroImage 10, 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1999.0478 (1999).
doi: 10.1006/nimg.1999.0478
pubmed: 10493902
Kruk, M., Pawlak, M. & Zawodniak, J. Another look at boredom in language instruction: The role of the predictable and the unexpected. Stud. Second Lang. Learn. Teach. 11, 15–40. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.1.2 (2021).
doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.1.2
Shiomi, M. et al. Field trial of a networked robot at a train station. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0077-4 (2011).
doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0077-4
Shiomi, M. et al. Recommendation effects of a social robot for advertisement-use context in a shopping mall. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0180-4 (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s12369-013-0180-4
Zaraki, A., Wood, L., Robins, B. & Dautenhahn, K. Development of a semi-autonomous robotic system to assist children with autism in developing visual perspective taking skills. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 969–976. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525681 (2018).
Beer, J. M., Fisk, A. D. & Rogers, W. A. Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human–robot interaction. J. Hum. Robot Interact. 3, 74–99. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.2.Beer (2014).
doi: 10.5898/JHRI.3.2.Beer
pubmed: 29082107
pmcid: 5656240
Jeong, S. et al. Deploying a robotic positive psychology coach to improve college students’ psychological well-being. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 33, 571–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-022-09337-8 (2023).
doi: 10.1007/s11257-022-09337-8
pubmed: 38737788
Reynolds, A. M. Current status and future directions of Lévy walk research. Biol. Open 7, bio030106. https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.030106 (2018).
doi: 10.1242/bio.030106
pubmed: 29326297
pmcid: 5829503
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M. A. & Zeileis, A. A Lego system for conditional inference. Am. Stat. 60, 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313006X118430 (2006).
doi: 10.1198/000313006X118430
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M. A. & Zeileis, A. Implementing a class of permutation tests: The coin package. J. Stat. Softw. 28, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i08 (2008).
doi: 10.18637/jss.v028.i08
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2023).
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn. (Routledge, 1988).