pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03882 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI· cs.CY

Recognition: unknown

Deco: Extending Personal Physical Objects into Pervasive AI Companion through a Dual-Embodiment Framework

Zhihan Jiang , Mengyuan Millie Wu , Ruishi Zou , Shiyu Xu , Xun Qian , Emma Macmanus , Steven Liao , Ping Zhang
show 9 more authors
Bingsheng Yao Tingyu Cheng James L. David Nabila El-Bassel Lena Mamykina Frances R. Levin Ryan Sultan Dakuo Wang Xuhai Xu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 14:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CY
keywords dual-embodimentAI companionaugmented realityemotional bondphysical objectLLMpervasive computinghuman-computer interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dual-embodiment systems let physical objects inherit emotional bonds when extended by responsive AI companions via AR and LLMs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that AI companions perform better when they extend users' existing attachments to physical objects rather than starting as independent digital entities. It first extracts four design principles from a formative study and then builds Deco as a mobile application that pairs a physical item with a synchronized AR digital version driven by multimodal LLMs. Controlled comparisons and a week-long deployment indicate stronger reported companionship, emotional bonds, and well-being gains than a digital-only baseline. Readers might care because many people already own cherished objects that could gain responsiveness without losing their tangible, history-rich presence.

Core claim

The Dual-Embodiment Companion Framework, realized in Deco, enables digital agents to inherit and extend the emotional history of physical objects through synchronized AR embodiments, producing measurably higher companionship and bond scores than standalone personalized LLM companions.

What carries the argument

The Dual-Embodiment Companion Framework, which synchronizes a user's physical companion object with an AR digital embodiment powered by multimodal LLMs to maintain identity, agency, presence, and memory across both forms.

If this is right

  • Deco produces higher scores than a personalized LLM baseline on perceived companionship, emotional bond, and adherence to the four design principles.
  • Seven days of use yields sustained engagement and a measurable rise in subjective well-being.
  • Digital activities can retroactively increase the perceived vitality of the original physical object.
  • Bond deepening correlates more with depth of emotional engagement than with raw interaction frequency.
  • Users continue the relationship while explicitly acknowledging and navigating the companion's AI character.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same dual-embodiment logic could apply to other personal physical items such as tools, jewelry, or mementos that users already treat as emotionally significant.
  • Longer deployments might show whether the digital layer changes how often or how tenderly people handle the physical object itself.
  • Adding environmental sensors could further support the ambient-presence principle by letting the companion react to context outside the user's direct interaction.

Load-bearing premise

Emotional bonds formed with physical objects can be faithfully inherited and extended by a digital AR embodiment without the technology introducing artifacts that erode authenticity or immersion.

What would settle it

A larger within-subjects study that finds no statistically significant difference in emotional-bond or companionship scores between Deco and the digital-only baseline would undermine the claimed advantage of the dual-embodiment approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03882 by Bingsheng Yao, Dakuo Wang, Emma Macmanus, Frances R. Levin, James L. David, Lena Mamykina, Mengyuan Millie Wu, Nabila El-Bassel, Ping Zhang, Ruishi Zou, Ryan Sultan, Shiyu Xu, Steven Liao, Tingyu Cheng, Xuhai Xu, Xun Qian, Zhihan Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of Deco. A user’s cherished physical object is extended through the dual-embodiment framework into a pervasive digital companion, realized as a mobile system guided by four design principles: Faithful Identity, Calibrated Agency, Ambient Presence, and Reciprocal Memory. arXiv:2605.03882v1 [cs.HC] 5 May 2026 view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dual-Embodiment Companion Framework. The companion exists as a single entity with physical and digital em view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The photos of the cherished physical objects of P1-P9 in the formative study. view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: System Architecture of Deco. The system consists of four modules: (1) the object-grounded identity synchronization module, (2) the identity-anchored interaction module, (3) the context-situated agency module, and (4) the reciprocally evolving memory module. • Pixel-art style avatar generation: A generative vision model (Gemini 3.1 Pro) processes user uploads into pixel-art sprites (Appendix B.1.1). To enfo… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Study I chat content analysis: percentage of user-sent messages in each category by condition ( view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Feature contribution rating heatmap and pre-post comparison of WHO-5 well-being and loneliness ( view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Daily prevalence of ten message categories (measured in %) over the seven-day deployment ( view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Individuals frequently form deep attachments to physical objects (e.g., plush toys) that usually cannot sense or respond to their emotions. While AI companions offer responsiveness and personalization, they exist independently of these physical objects and lack an ongoing connection to them. To bridge this gap, we conducted a formative study (N=9) to explore how digital agents could inherit and extend the emotional bond, deriving four design principles (Faithful Identity, Calibrated Agency, Ambient Presence, and Reciprocal Memory). We then present the Dual-Embodiment Companion Framework, instantiated as Deco, a mobile system integrating multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) and Augmented Reality to create synchronized digital embodiments of users' physical companions. A within-subjects study (N=25) showed Deco significantly outperformed a personalized LLM-empowered digital companion baseline on perceived companionship, emotional bond, and design-principle scales (all p<0.01). A seven-day field deployment (N=17) showed sustained engagement, subjective well-being improvement (p=.040), and three key relational patterns: digital activities retroactively vitalized physical objects, bond deepening was driven by emotional engagement depth rather than interaction frequency, and users sustained bonds while actively navigating digital companions' AI nature. This work highlights a promising alternative for designing digital companions: moving from creating new relationships to dual embodiment, where digital agents seamlessly extend the emotional history of physical objects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Dual-Embodiment Companion Framework to extend users' existing emotional attachments to physical objects (e.g., plush toys) into responsive AI companions via synchronized AR and multimodal LLM embodiments. Four design principles (Faithful Identity, Calibrated Agency, Ambient Presence, Reciprocal Memory) are derived from a formative study (N=9). These inform the Deco system, which is evaluated in a within-subjects lab study (N=25) showing statistically significant advantages over a personalized LLM digital baseline on companionship, emotional bond, and principle scales (all p<0.01), plus a 7-day field deployment (N=17) reporting sustained engagement, well-being gains (p=.040), and three relational patterns.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold after addressing reporting gaps, the work offers a distinctive alternative to de novo AI companion design by leveraging pre-existing physical bonds, with potential implications for more authentic long-term human-AI relationships. The multi-phase evaluation (formative + controlled + in-situ) and identification of specific relational patterns (e.g., digital activities retroactively vitalizing physical objects) constitute concrete strengths that could guide future systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5] §5 (Within-Subjects Evaluation): The N=25 study reports significant superiority (p<0.01) on perceived companionship and emotional bond scales yet omits effect sizes, counterbalancing details for the within-subjects design, blinding procedures, and power analysis; these omissions directly undermine confidence in the load-bearing claim that the dual-embodiment approach outperforms a non-physical baseline.
  2. [§6] §6 (Field Deployment): The N=17 seven-day study shows well-being improvement (p=.040) and relational patterns but includes neither a physical-only control arm nor independent authenticity/immersion metrics (e.g., third-party observation or physiological synchrony); without these, the central assumption that AR embodiment faithfully extends physical bonds without detectable artifacts remains untested at scale.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§4] The four design principles are introduced in §4 and then reused as evaluation scales in §5 without an explicit statement of how they were operationalized into questionnaire items.
  2. [Results figures] Figure captions and axis labels in the results figures lack units or scale ranges, reducing interpretability of the reported means and significance markers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (Within-Subjects Evaluation): The N=25 study reports significant superiority (p<0.01) on perceived companionship and emotional bond scales yet omits effect sizes, counterbalancing details for the within-subjects design, blinding procedures, and power analysis; these omissions directly undermine confidence in the load-bearing claim that the dual-embodiment approach outperforms a non-physical baseline.

    Authors: We agree that more detailed statistical reporting is necessary to support the claims. In the revised version, we will add effect sizes (Cohen's d) for all reported significant differences. We will include details on the counterbalancing procedure, which used a balanced Latin square to assign condition orders. The study was single-blind in that participants were unaware of the specific hypotheses being tested, though the visual difference in conditions made full double-blinding impractical; we will clarify this limitation. Additionally, we will report a post-hoc power analysis confirming sufficient power for the observed effects. These changes will be incorporated without altering the core findings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§6] §6 (Field Deployment): The N=17 seven-day study shows well-being improvement (p=.040) and relational patterns but includes neither a physical-only control arm nor independent authenticity/immersion metrics (e.g., third-party observation or physiological synchrony); without these, the central assumption that AR embodiment faithfully extends physical bonds without detectable artifacts remains untested at scale.

    Authors: The field study was intended as an exploratory deployment to capture real-world usage patterns and emergent relational dynamics, complementing the controlled lab study. A physical-only control arm was not feasible in this in-situ context as participants used their own personal objects, and the focus was on integration with the dual-embodiment system. We acknowledge the value of additional metrics for authenticity and immersion. In the revision, we will expand the discussion of limitations, explicitly noting the absence of control conditions and objective measures, and propose future studies incorporating physiological data or observational methods. The qualitative findings on relational patterns provide supporting evidence for the framework's viability, but we will temper claims accordingly. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper follows a standard empirical HCI research process with no mathematical derivations, parameter fitting, or definitional loops. A small formative study (N=9) derives four design principles that inform the Dual-Embodiment Framework and Deco implementation; these are then evaluated via independent larger studies (within-subjects N=25 against a non-physical LLM baseline, and field deployment N=17) using direct user-reported measures of companionship, emotional bond, well-being, and engagement. No equations, self-citations of prior author work, or fitted inputs reduce the central empirical claims to the formative inputs by construction. The outperformance results (p<0.01, p=0.040) are external observations against a control condition and are not tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that emotional attachments to physical objects are transferable to digital counterparts via synchronized embodiment. No free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced; the framework itself is the primary contribution.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Users form deep attachments to physical objects that can be inherited and extended by digital agents without loss of authenticity
    This premise underpins the entire Dual-Embodiment Framework and is justified only by the small formative study.
invented entities (1)
  • Dual-Embodiment Companion no independent evidence
    purpose: Synchronized physical-digital entity that extends emotional history
    Core system concept introduced by the paper; no independent falsifiable evidence outside the reported studies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5620 in / 1553 out tokens · 182892 ms · 2026-05-07T14:36:57.336553+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Salter Ainsworth, Mary C

    Mary D. Salter Ainsworth, Mary C. Blehar, Everett Waters, and Sally Wall. 1978.Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    1978

  2. [2]

    Bandai Co

    Ltd. Bandai Co. 1996. Tamagotchi. https://www.tamagotchi.com

    1996

  3. [3]

    Russell W. Belk. 1988. Possessions and the Extended Self.Journal of Consumer Research15, 2 (Sept. 1988), 139–168. doi:10.1086/209154

    work page doi:10.1086/209154 1988

  4. [4]

    Bickmore and Rosalind W

    Timothy W. Bickmore and Rosalind W. Picard. 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction12, 2 (2005), 293–327. doi:10.1145/1067860.1067867

    work page doi:10.1145/1067860.1067867 2005

  5. [5]

    Birnbaum, Moran Mizrahi, Guy Hoffman, Harry T

    Gurit E. Birnbaum, Moran Mizrahi, Guy Hoffman, Harry T. Reis, Eli J. Finkel, and Omri Sass. 2016. Machines as a Source of Consolation: Robot Responsiveness Increases Approach Behavior and Desire for Companionship. InProceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2016). 165–171. doi:10.1109/HRI.2016.7451748

    work page doi:10.1109/hri.2016.7451748 2016

  6. [6]

    1969.Attachment and Loss, Vol

    John Bowlby. 1969.Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books, New York

    1969

  7. [7]

    Petter Bae Brandtzaeg, Marita Skjuve, and Asbjørn Følstad. 2022. My AI Friend: How Users of a Social Chatbot Understand Their Human–AI Friendship.Human Communication Research48, 3 (2022), 404–429. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqac008

    work page doi:10.1093/hcr/hqac008 2022

  8. [8]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis.Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health11, 4 (2019), 589–597. Deco: A Dual-Embodiment Companion•25

    2019

  9. [9]

    Elizabeth Broadbent. 2017. Interactions with robots: The truths we reveal about ourselves.Annual Review of Psychology68 (2017), 627–652. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958 2017

  10. [10]

    John Brooke. 1996. SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. InUsability Evaluation in Industry, Patrick W. Jordan, Bruce Thomas, Bernard A. Weerdmeester, and Ian L. McClelland (Eds.). Taylor & Francis, London, 189–194

    1996

  11. [11]

    Yancheng Cao, Yishu Ji, Yue Fu, Sahiti Dharmavaram, Meghan Turchioe, Natalie C Benda, Lena Mamykina, Yuling Sun, and Xuhai Xu

  12. [12]

    InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    More than Decision Support: Exploring Patients’ Longitudinal Usage of Large Language Models in Real-World Healthcare-Seeking Journeys. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–24

    2026

  13. [13]

    Character Technologies

    Inc. Character Technologies. 2026. Character.AI. https://character.ai. Accessed: 2026-02-15

    2026

  14. [14]

    Junhyuk Choi, Yeseon Hong, Minju Kim, and Bugeun Kim. 2024. Examining Identity Drift in Conversations of LLM Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00804(2024). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.00804

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.00804 2024

  15. [15]

    Kate Darling. 2016. Extending legal protection to social robots: The effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. InRobot Law, Ryan Calo, A. Michael Froomkin, and Ian Kerr (Eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing, 213–232

    2016

  16. [16]

    gamification

    Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. InProceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. 9–15. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040

    work page doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040 2011

  17. [17]

    Mary E Dozier and Catherine R Ayers. 2021. Object Attachment as We Grow Older.Current Opinion in Psychology39 (June 2021), 105–108. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.012 2021

  18. [18]

    Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, Scott Akalis, and John T Cacioppo. 2008. When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism.Social cognition26, 2 (2008), 143–155

    2008

  19. [19]

    Jennifer Fereday and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2006. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Induc- tive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development.International Journal of Qualitative Methods5, 1 (2006), 80–92. doi:10.1177/ 160940690600500107

    2006

  20. [20]

    2009.Pandemonium and Parade: Japanese Monsters and the Culture of Y ¯okai

    Michael Dylan Foster. 2009.Pandemonium and Parade: Japanese Monsters and the Culture of Y ¯okai. University of California Press, Berkeley

    2009

  21. [21]

    Patrick Galbraith. 2009. Moe: Exploring Virtual Potential in Post-Millennial Japan.Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies 2009 (Oct. 2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    Gaver, Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford

    William W. Gaver, Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford. 2003. Ambiguity as a resource for design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 233–240. doi:10.1145/642611.642653

    work page doi:10.1145/642611.642653 2003

  23. [23]

    Jim Gemmell, Gordon Bell, and Roger Lueder. 2006. MyLifeBits: A Personal Database for Everything.Commun. ACM49, 1 (2006), 88–95. doi:10.1145/1107458.1107460

    work page doi:10.1145/1107458.1107460 2006

  24. [24]

    Shihui Guo, Lishuang Zhan, Yancheng Cao, Chen Zheng, Guyue Zhou, and Jiangtao Gong. 2023. Touch-and-heal: Data-driven affective computing in tactile interaction with robotic dog.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies7, 2 (2023), 1–33

    2023

  25. [25]

    Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. InProceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). 3025–3034. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

    work page doi:10.1109/hicss.2014.377 2014

  26. [26]

    Emotional Contagion

    Elaine Hatfield, John T. Cacioppo, and Richard L. Rapson. 1993. Emotional contagion.Current Directions in Psychological Science2, 3 (1993), 96–100. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953

    work page doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953 1993

  27. [27]

    Smith, Mark Baker, Tyler Harris, and David Stephenson

    Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Timothy B. Smith, Mark Baker, Tyler Harris, and David Stephenson. 2015. Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review.Perspectives on Psychological Science10, 2 (2015), 227–237. doi:10.1177/1745691614568352

    work page doi:10.1177/1745691614568352 2015

  28. [28]

    Richard Wohl

    Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl. 1956. Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry19, 3 (1956), 215–229. doi:10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049

    work page doi:10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049 1956

  29. [29]

    Huawei Technologies Co

    Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co. 2025. Huawei Smart Hanhan. https://technode.com/2025/11/26/huawei-launches-first-companion-chat- robot-smart-hanhan-priced-at-about-55/

    2025

  30. [30]

    Waite, Louise C

    Mary Elizabeth Hughes, Linda J. Waite, Louise C. Hawkley, and John T. Cacioppo. 2004. A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies.Research on Aging26, 6 (2004), 655–672. doi:10.1177/0164027504268574

    work page doi:10.1177/0164027504268574 2004

  31. [31]

    Lillian Hung, Cindy Liu, Evan Woldum, Andy Au-Yeung, Annette Berndt, Christine Wallsworth, Neil Horne, Mario Gregorio, Jim Mann, and Habib Chaudhury. 2019. The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot PARO in care settings: a scoping review.BMC Geriatrics 19, 1 (2019), 232. doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1244-6

    work page doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1244-6 2019

  32. [32]

    It’s always happy to see me

    Lillian Hung, Joey Wong, Karen Lok Yi Wong, Kelvin Cheng-Kian Tan, and Vivian Wei-Qun Lou. 2025. “It’s always happy to see me”: Exploring LOVOT robots as companions for older adults.Journal of Social Robotics(2025). doi:10.1177/20556683251320669

    work page doi:10.1177/20556683251320669 2025

  33. [33]

    Nozomu Iwai and Fabrice Matulic. 2025. Bringing Everyday Objects to Life in Augmented Reality with AI-Powered Talking Characters. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2025

  34. [34]

    Zhihan Jiang, Qianhui Chen, Chu Zhang, Yanheng Li, and RAY Lc. 2026. Hear You in Silence: Designing for Active Listening in Human Interaction with Conversational Agents Using Context-Aware Pacing. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–29. 26•Jiang et al

    2026

  35. [35]

    Kahn, Batya Friedman, Deanne R

    Peter H. Kahn, Batya Friedman, Deanne R. Pérez-Granados, and Nathan G. Freier. 2006. Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. Interaction Studies7, 3 (2006), 405–436. doi:10.1075/is.7.3.13kah

    work page doi:10.1075/is.7.3.13kah 2006

  36. [36]

    Keefer, Mark J

    Lucas A. Keefer, Mark J. Landau, and Daniel Sullivan. 2014. Non-Human Support: Broadening the Scope of Attachment Theory.Social and Personality Psychology Compass8, 9 (2014), 524–535. doi:10.1111/spc3.12129

    work page doi:10.1111/spc3.12129 2014

  37. [37]

    Ali Kiaghadi, Jin Huang, Seyedeh Zohreh Homayounfar, Trisha Andrew, and Deepak Ganesan. 2022. FabToys: Plush Toys with Large Arrays of Fabric-Based Pressure Sensors to Enable Fine-Grained Interaction Detection. InProceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and Services (MobiSys ’22). doi:10.1145/3498361.3538931

    work page doi:10.1145/3498361.3538931 2022

  38. [38]

    Kirk and Abigail Sellen

    David S. Kirk and Abigail Sellen. 2010. On Human Remains: Values and Practice in the Home Archiving of Cherished Objects.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction17, 3 (2010), 10:1–10:43. doi:10.1145/1806923.1806924

    work page doi:10.1145/1806923.1806924 2010

  39. [39]

    me” or “not me

    Susan Schultz Kleine, Robert E Kleine III, and Chris T Allen. 1995. How is a possession “me” or “not me”? Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession attachment.Journal of consumer research22, 3 (1995), 327–343

    1995

  40. [40]

    Rafal Kocielnik, Lillian Xiao, Daniel Avrahami, and Gary Hsieh. 2018. Reflection companion: a conversational system for engaging users in reflection on physical activity.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies2, 2 (2018), 1–26

    2018

  41. [41]

    Kuaishou Technology. 2026. Vidu Q3. https://www.vidu.com/vidu-q3. Accessed: 2026-03-30

    2026

  42. [42]

    Zisu Li, Jiawei Li, Zeyu Xiong, Shumeng Zhang, Faraz Faruqi, Stefanie Mueller, Chen Liang, Xiaojuan Ma, and Mingming Fan. 2025. InteRecon: Towards Reconstructing Interactivity of Personal Memorable Items in Mixed Reality. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2025

  43. [43]

    Tianjian Liu, Hongzheng Zhao, Yuheng Liu, Xingbo Wang, and Zhenhui Peng. 2024. Compeer: A generative conversational agent for proactive peer support. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–22

    2024

  44. [44]

    Inc. Luka. 2026. Replika. https://replika.com. Accessed: 2026-02-15

    2026

  45. [45]

    Morton J Mendelson and Frances E Aboud. 1999. Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents and young adults: McGill Friendship Questionnaires.Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement31, 2 (1999), 130

    1999

  46. [46]

    Wendy Moncur and David Kirk. 2014. An Emergent Framework for Digital Memorials. InProceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’14). 965–974. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598516

    work page doi:10.1145/2598510.2598516 2014

  47. [47]

    Ruth Mugge, Jan P. L. Schoormans, and Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein. 2005. Design Strategies to Postpone Consumers’ Product Replacement: The Value of a Strong Person-Product Relationship.The Design Journal8, 2 (2005), 38–48. doi:10.2752/146069205789331637

    work page doi:10.2752/146069205789331637 2005

  48. [48]

    Subigya Nepal, Arvind Pillai, William Campbell, Talie Massachi, Michael V Heinz, Ashmita Kunwar, Eunsol Soul Choi, Xuhai Xu, Joanna Kuc, Jeremy F Huckins, et al. 2024. MindScape study: integrating LLM and behavioral sensing for personalized AI-driven journaling experiences.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies...

    2024

  49. [49]

    2023.Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S

    Office of the Surgeon General. 2023.Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community. Technical Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC

    2023

  50. [50]

    Daniela Petrelli, Steve Whittaker, and Jens Brockmeier. 2008. AutoTopography: What Can Physical Mementos Tell Us About Digital Memories?. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’08). 53–62. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357065

    work page doi:10.1145/1357054.1357065 2008

  51. [51]

    1996.The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places

    Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass. 1996.The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    1996

  52. [52]

    Reis and Phillip Shaver

    Harry T. Reis and Phillip Shaver. 1988.Intimacy as an interpersonal process. USA

    1988

  53. [53]

    Pollen Robotics. 2024. Reachy Mini. https://www.pollen-robotics.com/reachy-mini/

    2024

  54. [54]

    Marita Skjuve, Asbjørn Følstad, Knut Inge Fostervold, and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. 2021. My chatbot companion—a study of human-chatbot relationships.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies149 (2021), 102601. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601 2021

  55. [55]

    Molly G Smith, Thomas N Bradbury, and Benjamin R Karney. 2025. Can generative AI chatbots emulate human connection? A relationship science perspective.Perspectives on Psychological Science20, 6 (2025), 1081–1099

    2025

  56. [56]

    Yuta Sugiura, Calista Lee, Masayasu Ogata, Anusha Withana, Yasutoshi Makino, Daisuke Sakamoto, Masahiko Inami, and Takeo Igarashi

  57. [57]

    InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12)

    PINOKY: A Ring That Animates Your Plush Toys. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). 725–734. doi:10.1145/2207676.2207780

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2207780

  58. [58]

    Kenneth Tai, Xue Zheng, and Jayanth Narayanan. 2011. Touching a teddy bear mitigates negative effects of social exclusion to increase prosocial behavior.Social Psychological and Personality Science2, 6 (2011), 618–626

    2011

  59. [59]

    Thompson

    Edmund R. Thompson. 2007. Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS).Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology38, 2 (2007), 227–242. doi:10.1177/0022022106297301

    work page doi:10.1177/0022022106297301 2007

  60. [60]

    Anne-Sophie Tribot, Nathalie Blanc, Thierry Brassac, François Guilhaumon, Nicolas Casajus, and Nicolas Mouquet. 2024. What makes a teddy bear comforting? A participatory study reveals the prevalence of sensory characteristics and emotional bonds in the perception of comforting teddy bears.The Journal of Positive Psychology19, 2 (2024), 379–392

    2024

  61. [61]

    2011.Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other

    Sherry Turkle. 2011.Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books, New York

    2011

  62. [62]

    Doménique van Gennip, Elise van den Hoven, and Panos Markopoulos. 2015. Things That Make Us Reminisce: Everyday Memory Cues as Opportunities for Interaction Design. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). 3443–3452. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702460 Deco: A Dual-Embodiment Companion•27

    work page doi:10.1145/2702123.2702460 2015

  63. [63]

    If My Apple Can Talk

    Yu Wang, Yulu Lu, Shuo Yan, and Xukun Shen. 2025. "If My Apple Can Talk": Exploring the Use of Everyday Objects as Personalized AI Agents in Mixed Reality. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2025

  64. [64]

    Wilson and Daniel T

    Timothy D. Wilson and Daniel T. Gilbert. 2008. Explaining Away: A Model of Affective Adaptation.Perspectives on Psychological Science 3, 5 (2008), 370–386. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00085.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00085.x 2008

  65. [65]

    1998.Wellbeing Measures in Primary Health Care/The DepCare Project

    World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. 1998.Wellbeing Measures in Primary Health Care/The DepCare Project. Technical Report. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen

    1998

  66. [66]

    Zhenyu Xu, Hailin Xu, Zhouyang Lu, Yingying Zhao, Rui Zhu, Yujiang Wang, Mingzhi Dong, Yuhu Chang, Qin Lv, Robert P Dick, et al. 2024. Can large language models be good companions? An LLM-based eyewear system with conversational common ground. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies8, 2 (2024), 1–41

    2024

  67. [67]

    Yunhao Yuan, Jiaxun Zhang, Talayeh Aledavood, Renwen Zhang, and Koustuv Saha. 2026. Mental Health Impacts of AI Companions: Triangulating Social Media Quasi-Experiments, User Perspectives, and Relational Lens. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22

    2026

  68. [68]

    Yiran Zhao, Yujie Tao, Grace Le, Rui Maki, Alexander Adams, Pedro Lopes, and Tanzeem Choudhury. 2023. Affective touch as immediate and passive wearable intervention.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies6, 4 (2023), 1–23

    2023

  69. [69]

    Sigal Zilcha-Mano, Mario Mikulincer, and Phillip R. Shaver. 2011. Pet in the Therapy Room: An Attachment Perspective on Animal- Assisted Therapy.Attachment & Human Development13, 6 (2011), 541–561. doi:10.1080/14616734.2011.608987

    work page doi:10.1080/14616734.2011.608987 2011