Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 (Nvideo = 123, Nquest = 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.2013.0001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rus D, Tolley MT (2015) Design, fabrication and control of soft robots. Nature 521:467–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14543

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  6. 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/s12369-012-0177-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.2016.2588018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.aah3690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.2013.0007

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/s12369-008-0001-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/10.1561/2300000057

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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 2:345–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.17.3.04vla

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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/10.1145/3209769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/10.1145/3209701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 17:522–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 2:361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/10.2307/1416950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.Hoffman

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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/s12369-014-0278-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.2017.0032

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.2017.00012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/s12369-018-0500-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/10.1177/0956797614561044

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352748

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sara Á. G. Nielsen and Anna Sabine Nielsen for their help in conducting the interaction trials and acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their constructive input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Soft Robotics, SDU Biorobotics, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark

    Jonas Jørgensen

  2. Center for Neuropsychiatric Schizophrenia Research (CNSR) and Center for Clinical Intervention and Neuropsychiatric Schizophrenia Research (CINS), Mental Health Centre Glostrup, University of Copenhagen, Nordstjernevej 29-67, 2600, Glostrup, Denmark

    Kirsten Borup Bojesen

  3. Research Laboratory for Art and Technology, Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, Rendsburggade 14, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark

    Elizabeth Jochum

Authors
  1. Jonas Jørgensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsten Borup Bojesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth Jochum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Jørgensen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from the study participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (MP4 95992 KB)

Supplementary file2 (MP4 10189 KB)

Supplementary file3 (MP4 118353 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jørgensen, J., Bojesen, K.B. & Jochum, E. Is a Soft Robot More “Natural”? Exploring the Perception of Soft Robotics in Human–Robot Interaction. Int J of Soc Robotics 14, 95–113 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00761-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00761-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation