Top

International Journal of Social Robotics

Published in:

20-03-2021

Is a Soft Robot More “Natural”? Exploring the Perception of Soft Robotics in Human–Robot Interaction

Authors: Jonas Jørgensen, Kirsten Borup Bojesen, Elizabeth Jochum

Published in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Issue 1/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Soft robotics technology has been proposed for a number of applications that involve human–robot interaction. It is commonly presumed that soft robots are perceived as more natural, and thus more appealing, than rigid robots, an assumption that has not hitherto been tested or validated. This study investigates human perception of and physical interaction with soft robots as compared with rigid robots. Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted an observational study to explore whether soft robots are perceived as more natural, and what types of interactions soft robots encourage. In a between-subjects study, participants interacted with a soft robotic tentacle or a rigid robot of a similar shape. The interactions were video recorded, and data was also obtained from questionnaires (N_video = 123, N_quest = 94). Despite their drastically different appearances and materials, we found no significant differences in how appealing or natural the robots were rated to be. Appeal was positively associated with perceived naturalness in all cases, however we observed a wide variation in how participants define “natural”. Although participants showed no clear preference, qualitative analysis of video data indicated that soft robots and rigid robots elicit different interaction patterns and behaviors. The findings highlight the key role of physical embodiment and materiality in human–robot interaction, and challenge existing assumptions about what makes robots appear natural.

previous article Computer-Aided Teaching Using SimMechanics and Matlab for Project-Based Learning in a Robotics Course

next article Should I be Introvert or Extrovert? A Pairwise Robot Comparison Assessing the Perception of Personality-Based Social Robot Behaviors

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Pfeifer R, Lungarella M, Iida F (2012) The challenges ahead for bio-inspired “soft” robotics. Commun ACM 55:76–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/2366316.2366335CrossRef

Majidi C (2013) Soft robotics: a perspective—current trends and prospects for the future. Soft Robot 1:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2013.0001CrossRef

Rus D, Tolley MT (2015) Design, fabrication and control of soft robots. Nature 521:467–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14543CrossRef

Verl A, Albu-Schäffer A, Brock O, Raatz A (2015) Soft robotics: transferring theory to application. Springer, Berlin

Soft Robotics Inc. (n.d.) Customers using soft robotics. In: Soft robot. https://www.softroboticsinc.com/in-use. Accessed 11 Mar 2019

von Zitzewitz J, Boesch PM, Wolf P, Riener R (2013) Quantifying the human likeness of a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 5:263–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0177-4CrossRef

Rossiter J, Hauser H (2016) Soft robotics—the next industrial revolution? [industrial activities]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 23:17–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2016.2588018CrossRef

Laschi C, Mazzolai B, Cianchetti M (2016) Soft robotics: Technologies and systems pushing the boundaries of robot abilities. Sci Robot 1:eaah3690. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aah3690CrossRef

Lipson H (2013) Challenges and opportunities for design, simulation, and fabrication of soft robots. Soft Robot 1:21–27. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2013.0007CrossRef

10.

Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42:143–166CrossRef

11.

Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3CrossRef

12.

Li H, Cabibihan J-J, Tan YK (2011) Towards an effective design of social robots. Int J Soc Robot 3:333–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0121-zCrossRef

13.

Wainer J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Shell DA, Mataric MJ (2007) Embodiment and human–robot interaction: a task-based perspective. In: RO-MAN 2007—the 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 872–877

14.

Stollnberger G, Weiss A, Tscheligi M (2013) “ The harder it gets” exploring the interdependency of input modalities and task complexity in human–robot collaboration. In: 2013 IEEE RO-MAN. IEEE, pp 264–269

15.

Cha E, Kim Y, Fong T, Mataric MJ (2018) A survey of nonverbal signaling methods for non-humanoid robots. Found Trends® Robot 6:211–323. https://doi.org/10.1561/2300000057CrossRef

16.

Suchman L (2007) Human–machine reconfigurations: plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press

17.

Weiss A, Tscheligi M (2010) Special issue on robots for future societies: evaluating social acceptance and societal impact of robots. Int J Soc Robot 2:345–346CrossRef

18.

Kroos C, Herath DC (2012) Evoking agency: attention model and behavior control in a robotic art installation. Leonardo 45:401–407CrossRef

19.

Alač M (2015) Social robots: things or agents? AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0631-6CrossRef

20.

Penny S (2016) Robotics and art, computationalism and embodiment. In: Herath D, Kroos C, Stelarc (eds) Robots and art. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–65

21.

Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human–robot cooperation. In: The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. IEEE, pp 55–60

22.

Bartneck C, Forlizzi J (2004) A design-centred framework for social human–robot interaction. In: RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (IEEE Catalog No. 04TH8759). IEEE, pp 591–594

23.

Walters ML, Koay KL, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R (2009) Preferences and perceptions of robot appearance and embodiment in human–robot interaction trials. In: Proceedings of new frontiers in human–robot interaction. SSAISB, pp 136–143

24.

Boer L, Bewley H (2018) Reconfiguring the appearance and expression of social robots by acknowledging their otherness. In: Proceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference. ACM, New York, pp 667–677

25.

Jørgensen J (2018) Appeal and perceived naturalness of a soft robotic tentacle. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 139–140

26.

Milthers ADB, Bjerre Hammer A, Jung Johansen J, Jensen LG, Jochum EA, Löchtefeld M (2019) The helpless soft robot—stimulating human collaboration through robotic movement. In: Extended abstracts of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp LBW2421:1–LBW2421:6

27.

Zheng CY (2018) Affective touch with soft robotic actuators—a design toolkit for personalised affective communication. In: Workshop: reshaping touch communication: an interdisciplinary research agenda, ACM CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, p 4

28.

Zheng CY (2019) Soft grippers not only grasp fruits: from affective to psychotropic HRI, p 4

29.

Silvera-Tawil D, Velonaki M, Rye D (2015) Human–robot interaction with humanoid diamandini using an open experimentation method. In: 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 425–430

30.

Vlachos E, Jochum E, Demers L-P (2016) The effects of exposure to different social robots on attitudes toward preferences. Interact Stud 17:390–404. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.04vlaCrossRef

31.

Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

32.

Bartneck C, Belpaeme T, Eyssel F, Kanda T, Keijsers M, Šabanović S (2020) Human–robot interaction: an introduction, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

33.

Papageorgiou XS, Tzafestas CS, Vartholomeos PP, Laschi C, Lopez R (2015) ICT-supported bath robots: design concepts. In: Workshop of the 2015 7th international conference on social robotics: improving the quality of life in the elderly using robotic assistive technology: benefits, limitations, and challenges. Citeseer

34.

Borgatti M (2013) A little background|Silicone Robo-Tentacle|Adafruit Learning System. In: Adafruit.com. https://learn.adafruit.com/silicone-robo-tentacle/a-little-background?embeds=allow. Accessed 11 Mar 2019

35.

Estevez D (2013) REPY-2.0 Module by DEF. In: Thingiverse.com. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:99207. Accessed 11 Mar 2019

36.

Sabanovic S, Michalowski MP, Simmons R (2006) Robots in the wild: observing human–robot social interaction outside the lab. In: 9th IEEE international workshop on advanced motion control, 2006. IEEE, pp 596–601

37.

Dautenhahn K (2018) Some brief thoughts on the past and future of human–robot interaction. ACM Trans Hum-Robot Interact 7:4:1-4:3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209769CrossRef

38.

Kiesler S, Goodrich MA (2018) The science of human–robot interaction. ACM Trans Hum-Robot Interact 7:9:1-9:3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209701CrossRef

39.

Krummheuer AL (2015) Users, bystanders and agents: participation roles in human–agent interaction. In: Human–computer interaction. Springer, pp 240–247

40.

De Ruyter B, Saini P, Markopoulos P, Van Breemen A (2005) Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interact Comput 17:522–541CrossRef

41.

Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2:361–375CrossRef

42.

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRef

43.

Jørgensen J (2017) Leveraging morphological computation for expressive movement generation in a soft robotic artwork. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on movement computing. ACM, New York, pp 20:1–20:4

44.

Jørgensen J (2017) Prolegomena for a transdisciplinary investigation into the materialities of soft systems. In: ISEA 2017 Manizales: bio-creation and peace: proceedings of the 23rd international symposium on electronic art. Department of Visual Design, Universidad de Caldas, and ISEA International, University of Caldas, Manizales, Colombia, pp 153–160

45.

Jørgensen J (2018) Interaction with soft robotic tentacles. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, New York, pp 38–38

46.

Briggs SR, Cheek JM (1986) The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. J Pers 54:106–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.xCrossRef

47.

The Uncanny Valley: The original essay by Masahiro Mori—IEEE Spectrum. In: IEEE Spectr. Technol. Eng. Sci. News. https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/the-uncanny-valley. Accessed 7 Aug 2020

48.

natural|Definition of natural in English by Oxford Dictionaries. In: Oxf. Dictionaries Engl. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/natural. Accessed 18 Mar 2019

49.

Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57:243–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416950CrossRef

50.

Hoffman G, Ju W (2014) Designing robots with movement in mind. J Hum-Robot Interact 3:89–122. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.1.HoffmanCrossRef

51.

Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press

52.

Ghedini F, Bergamasco M (2010) Robotic creatures: anthropomorphism and interaction in contemporary art. In: 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 731–736

53.

Barthes R (2009) Mythologies, revised. Vintage Classics, London

54.

Foucault M (2001) The order of things: archaeology of the human sciences. Routledge, London

55.

Sandry E (2015) Re-evaluating the form and communication of social robots. Int J Soc Robot 7:335–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0278-3CrossRef

56.

Hansen LK, Dalsgaard P (2015) Note to self: stop calling interfaces “natural”. In: Proceedings of the fifth Decennial Aarhus conference on critical alternatives. Aarhus University Press, pp 65–68

57.

Dautenhahn K (2013) Human–robot interaction. In: Lowgren J, Carroll JM, Hassenzahl M, Erickson T (eds) The encyclopedia of human–computer interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Foundation, Aarhus

58.

Arnold T, Scheutz M (2017) the tactile ethics of soft robotics: designing wisely for human–robot interaction. Soft Robot 4:81–87. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2017.0032CrossRef

59.

Lee KM (2004) Presence, explicated. Commun Theory 14:27–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.xCrossRef

60.

Nguyen T, Heslin R, Nguyen ML (1975) The meanings of touch: sex differences. J Commun 25:92–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1975.tb00610.xCrossRef

61.

Willemse CJAM, Toet A, van Erp JBF (2017) Affective and behavioral responses to robot-initiated social touch: toward understanding the opportunities and limitations of physical contact in human–robot interaction. Front ICT. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2017.00012CrossRef

62.

Willemse CJAM, van Erp JBF (2019) 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/s12369-018-0500-9CrossRef

63.

Harlow HF, Zimmermann RR (1959) Affectional responses in the infant monkey. Science 130:421–432CrossRef

64.

Aragón OR, Clark MS, Dyer RL, Bargh JA (2015) Dimorphous expressions of positive emotion: displays of both care and aggression in response to cute stimuli. Psychol Sci 26:259–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614561044CrossRef

65.

Block AE, Kuchenbecker KJ (2018) Softness, warmth, and responsiveness improve robot hugs. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0495-2CrossRef

66.

Eggink W, Snippert J (2017) Future Aesthetics of Technology; context specific theories from design and philosophy of technology. Des J 20:S196–S208. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352748CrossRef

Title: Is a Soft Robot More “Natural”? Exploring the Perception of Soft Robotics in Human–Robot Interaction
Authors: Jonas Jørgensen
Kirsten Borup Bojesen
Elizabeth Jochum
Publication date: 20-03-2021
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: International Journal of Social Robotics / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Electronic ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00761-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Enhancing Emotional Support: The Effect of a Robotic Object on Human–Human Support Quality

Human-Robot Handshaking: A Review

Effect of Voice Type and Head-Light Color in Social Robots for Different Applications

The Effects of Interface Views on Performing Aerial Telemanipulation Tasks Using Small UAVs

Computer-Aided Teaching Using SimMechanics and Matlab for Project-Based Learning in a Robotics Course

People Do not Automatically Take the Level-1 Visual Perspective of Humanoid Robot Avatars

Premium Partners