skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3025774acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sketching CuddleBits: Coupled Prototyping of Body and Behaviour for an Affective Robot Pet

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Social robots that physically display emotion invite natural communication with their human interlocutors, enabling applications like robot-assisted therapy where a complex robot's breathing influences human emotional and physiological state. Using DIY fabrication and assembly, we explore how simple 1-DOF robots can express affect with economy and user customizability, leveraging open-source designs.

We developed low-cost techniques for coupled iteration of a simple robot's body and behaviour, and evaluated its potential to display emotion. Through two user studies, we (1) validated these CuddleBits' ability to express emotions (N=20); (2) sourced a corpus of 72 robot emotion behaviours from participants (N=10); and (3) analyzed it to link underlying parameters to emotional perception (N=14).

We found that CuddleBits can express arousal (activation), and to a lesser degree valence (pleasantness). We also show how a sketch-refine paradigm combined with DIY fabrication and novel input methods enable parametric design of physical emotion display, and discuss how mastering this parsimonious case can give insight into layering simple behaviours in more complex robots.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn2576-file3.mp4

mp4

4.5 MB

pn2576p.mp4

mp4

3.4 MB

p3681-bucci.mp4

mp4

182 MB

References

  1. Jeff Allen, Laura Cang, Michael Phan-Ba, Andrew Strang, and Karon MacLean. 2015. Introducing the Cuddlebot: A Robot that Responds to Touch Gestures. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts. ACM, 295--295. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Lisa Feldman Barrett, Batja Mesquita, and Maria Gendron. 2011. Context in emotion perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20, 5 (2011), 286--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Susana Bloch, Madeleine Lemeignan, and Nancy Aguilera-T. 1991. Specific respiratory patterns distinguish among human basic emotions. International Journal of Psychophysiology 11, 2 (1991), 141--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Frans A Boiten, Nico H Frijda, and Cornelis JE Wientjes. 1994. Emotions and respiratory patterns: review and critical analysis. International Journal of Psychophysiology 17, 2 (1994), 103--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Paul Bucci, X. Laura Cang, Matthew Chun, David Marino, Oliver Schnieder, Hasti Seifi, and Karon E. MacLean. 2016. CuddleBits: an iterative prototyping platform for complex haptic display. Eurohaptics Demonstration (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Laura Cang, Paul Bucci, and Karon E MacLean. 2015. CuddleBits: Friendly, Low-cost Furballs that Respond to Touch. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. ACM, 365--366. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2818346.2823293 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jessica Q Dawson, Oliver S Schneider, Joel Ferstay, Dereck Toker, Juliette Link, Shathel Haddad, and Karon MacLean. 2013. It's alive!: exploring the design space of a gesturing phone. In Proc of Graphics Interface 2013. Canadian Information Processing Society, 205--212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Celso M de Melo, Patrick Kenny, and Jonathan Gratch. 2010. Real-time expression of affect through respiration. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 21, 3--4 (2010), 225--234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Lisa Feldman Barrett and James A Russell. 1998. Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of personality and social psychology 74, 4 (1998), 967.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Terrence Fong, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 3 (2003), 143--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Jonas Forsslund, Michael Yip, and Eva-Lotta Sallnäs. 2015. WoodenHaptics: A Starting Kit for Crafting Force-Reflecting Spatial Haptic Devices. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 133--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. John Harris and Ehud Sharlin. 2011. Exploring the affect of abstract motion in social human-robot interaction. In 2011 Ro-Man. IEEE, 441--448. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel. 1944. An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology 57, 2 (1944), 243--259. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Tanja Hofer, Petra Hauf, and Gisa Aschersleben. 2007. Infants' perception of goal-directed actions on video. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 25, 3 (2007), 485--498. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Guy Hoffman and Wendy Ju. 2014. Designing robots with movement in mind. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3, 1 (2014), 89--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Youn-Kyung Lim, Erik Stolterman, and Josh Tenenberg. 2008. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM TOCHI 15, 2 (2008), 7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C. Lithari, C. A. Frantzidis, C. Papadelis, Ana B. Vivas, M. A. Klados, C. Kourtidou-Papadeli, C. Pappas, A. A. Ioannides, and P. D. Bamidis. 2010. Are Females More Responsive to Emotional Stimuli? A Neurophysiological Study Across Arousal and Valence Dimensions. Brain Topography 23, 1 (2010), 27--40. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10548-009-0130--5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Lars Mathiassen, Thomas Seewaldt, and Jan Stage. 1995. Prototyping and specifying: principles and practices of a mixed approach. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 7, 1 (1995), 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Camille Moussette. 2012. Simple haptics: Sketching perspectives for the design of haptic interactions. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Camille Moussette and Fabricio Dore. 2010. Sketching in Hardware and Building Interaction Design: tools, toolkits and an attitude for Interaction Designers. In Design Research Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. S Oliver and M Karon. 2014. Haptic jazz: Collaborative touch with the haptic instrument. In IEEE Haptics Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Pierre Rainville, Antoine Bechara, Nasir Naqvi, and Antonio R Damasio. 2006. Basic emotions are associated with distinct patterns of cardiorespiratory activity. International journal of psychophysiology 61, 1 (2006), 5--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Jussi Rantala, Katri Salminen, Roope Raisamo, and Veikko Surakka. 2013. Touch gestures in communicating emotional intention via vibrotactile stimulation. Intl J Human-Computer Studies 71, 6 (2013), 679--690. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Tiago Ribeiro and Ana Paiva. 2012. The illusion of robotic life: principles and practices of animation for robots. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 383--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. James A Russell. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 6 (1980), 1161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. James A Russell, Anna Weiss, and Gerald A Mendelsohn. 1989. Affect grid: a single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. J Personality & Social Psychology 57, 3 (1989).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Jelle Saldien, Kristof Goris, Selma Yilmazyildiz, Werner Verhelst, and Dirk Lefeber. 2008. On the design of the huggable robot Probo. Journal of Physical Agents 2, 2 (2008), 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Oliver S Schneider and Karon E MacLean. 2016. Studying design process and example use with Macaron, a web-based vibrotactile effect editor. In 2016 IEEE Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS). IEEE, 52--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Oliver S Schneider, Hasti Seifi, Salma Kashani, Matthew Chun, and Karon E MacLean. 2016. HapTurk: Crowdsourcing Affective Ratings of Vibrotactile Icons. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3248--3260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Yasaman S Sefidgar, Karon E MacLean, Steve Yohanan, HF Machiel Van der Loos, Elizabeth A Croft, and E Jane Garland. 2016. Design and Evaluation of a Touch-Centered Calming Interaction with a Social Robot. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 7, 2 (2016), 108--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Michael Shaver and Karon Maclean. 2003. The Twiddler: A haptic teaching tool for low-cost communication and mechanical design. Master's thesis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Sotaro Shimada and Kazuo Hiraki. 2006. Infant's brain responses to live and televised action. Neuroimage 32, 2 (2006), 930--939. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Walter Dan Stiehl, Jun Ki Lee, Cynthia Breazeal, Marco Nalin, Angelica Morandi, and Alberto Sanna. 2009. The huggable: a platform for research in robotic companions for pediatric care. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on interaction Design and Children. ACM, 317--320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Kazuyoshi Wada and Takanori Shibata. 2007. Living with seal robots--its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 23, 5 (2007), 972--980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Kazuyoshi Wada, Takanori Shibata, Takashi Asada, and Toshimitsu Musha. 2007. Robot therapy for prevention of dementia at home. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics 19, 6 (2007), 691.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. David Watson, Lee A. Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 6 (1988), 1063--1070. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022--3514.54.6.1063Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Steve Yohanan and Karon MacLean. 2009. A tool to study affective touch. In CHI'09 Extended Abstracts. ACM, 4153--4158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Steve Yohanan and Karon MacLean. 2011. Design and assessment of the haptic creature's affect display. In HRI'11. ACM, 473--480. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Steve Yohanan and Karon E MacLean. 2012. The role of affective touch in human-robot interaction: Human intent and expectations in touching the haptic creature. Intl J Social Robotics 4, 2 (2012), 163--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Sketching CuddleBits: Coupled Prototyping of Body and Behaviour for an Affective Robot Pet

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2017
      7138 pages
      ISBN:9781450346559
      DOI:10.1145/3025453

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 May 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate600of2,400submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader