pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23402 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.RO

Otherness as a Quality in Designing Expressive Robotic Touch

Ran Zhou , Laurens Boer , Daniel Leithinger , Madeline Balaam This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 07:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.RO
keywords robotic touchothernessexpressive designhaptic interactionhuman-robot interactionresearch through designambiguitydesign qualities
0
0 comments X

The pith

Robotic touch can become more expressive by embracing its inherent otherness as a design feature rather than minimizing it.

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

The paper argues that robotic touch feels different from human touch, and this difference, called otherness, should be used intentionally in design. By looking at art examples and creating four design cases, the authors develop ways to use this otherness to create ambiguous experiences that invite users to interpret the touch in new ways. This matters because chasing perfect realism in robotic touch can lead to rejection or discomfort, while embracing the robotic quality might allow for richer, more creative interactions. The approach provides design strategies for why otherness helps meaning-making, how to shape it, and where to place it in the system.

Core claim

Grounded in the notion of otherness from human-robot interaction, the paper proposes treating robotic touch's inherent otherness as a design quality. Instead of viewing it as a limitation when pursuing realism, otherness can be embraced to elicit ambiguity and provoke alternative interpretations, thereby fostering expressive and evocative robotic touch design. This perspective is developed through analysis of inspirational art and design precedents and four design research cases using a reflective Research through Design approach, leading to articulated design languages structured around the role of otherness in touch meaning-making.

What carries the argument

Otherness, defined as the distinct non-human quality of robotic touch that sets it apart from natural or human sensations, serves as the central mechanism by turning a potential drawback into a resource for creating ambiguity and alternative meanings in interactions.

If this is right

  • Designers gain a set of strategies to shape otherness through specific choices in robotic touch systems.
  • Robotic touch can be embedded with otherness at different stages to support expressive outcomes.
  • Interactions become more evocative by allowing users to form their own interpretations instead of aiming for literal replication.
  • This reduces risks of social resistance associated with overly realistic but imperfect simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Applying similar otherness strategies could extend to non-robotic haptic devices in virtual environments to enhance creativity.
  • Future work might explore how cultural backgrounds influence perceptions of robotic otherness.
  • Evaluation methods could shift focus from accuracy to the quality of ambiguity generated in user experiences.

Load-bearing premise

The inspirational precedents and four design cases provide sufficient evidence that otherness-based design strategies are generally effective and do not lead to unintended negative social or emotional responses.

What would settle it

User studies with otherness-focused robotic touch prototypes where participants consistently report discomfort, rejection, or no added expressive value compared to realism-focused designs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23402 by Daniel Leithinger, Laurens Boer, Madeline Balaam, Ran Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Four design research cases: Blo-nut [9, 12], TactorBots [123], Shape-Kit [120], Pelvic Chair [105, 106, 116]. Annotation: robotic touch modality (dark gray background), expressive quality and context (white background), design strategy (black background) Abstract Haptic technologies have advanced rapidly, yet exploration of robotic touch remains dominated by replicating realistic environ￾mental cues or han… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Annotated Precedents of Expressive Robotics: Making Friends by Making Them [ view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Four design research cases with prototyping & iteration collages: Blo-nut [ view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Deconstruction of four robotic touch systems into design and control attributes, with annotations highlighting view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Selected quotes from each design research case illustrating participants’ experiences of engaging with expressive view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of our developed design languages as handles to help designers think and work with otherness in practices. view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Haptic technologies have advanced rapidly, yet exploration of robotic touch remains dominated by replicating realistic environmental cues or hand gestures, which narrows the design space and risks social resistance. This paper argues for alternatives: grounded in the notion of "otherness" from human-robot interaction (HRI), we propose treating robotic touch's inherent otherness as a design quality. Instead of being a limitation in pursuing realism, otherness can be embraced to elicit ambiguity and provoke alternative interpretations, fostering expressive and evocative robotic touch design. To develop this perspective, we analyze inspirational art and design precedents and four design research cases through a reflective Research through Design (RtD) approach. Through this analysis, we articulate a set of design languages structured around why otherness matters for touch meaning-making, how it can be shaped through design strategies, and where it can be embedded within robotic touch systems. We conclude by reflecting on the tensions and risks involved in designing robotic touch with otherness in mind.

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 manuscript argues that robotic touch's inherent otherness should be embraced as a design quality to elicit ambiguity and alternative interpretations, rather than pursuing realism which may lead to social resistance. Drawing on HRI literature and inspirational precedents, the authors analyze four RtD design cases to articulate design languages concerning why otherness matters for meaning-making, how it can be shaped, and where it can be embedded in robotic touch systems. The work concludes with reflections on associated tensions and risks.

Significance. This work offers a valuable reframing of robotic touch design in human-robot interaction by shifting focus from replication to expressive otherness, with potential to inspire innovative haptic interfaces. The reflective RtD approach and integration of external precedents provide concrete, structured design knowledge that can serve as inspiration for practitioners. Strengths include the balanced acknowledgment of risks and the generation of actionable design languages from cases.

major comments (2)
  1. [Design Cases] The section on the four design research cases: these cases are presented as the foundation for deriving the design languages on shaping and embedding otherness, but the manuscript provides insufficient detail on specific design decisions, iterations, or observed outcomes in each case, making it difficult to evaluate how the strategies were operationalized or their transferability.
  2. [Conclusion] Conclusion: the central claim that embracing otherness fosters expressive and evocative robotic touch (rather than risking dominant negative responses) rests on reflective analysis, yet the discussion of tensions does not include any proposed evaluation methods, mitigation approaches, or criteria for assessing net-positive impact in practice, leaving generalizability as an untested assertion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract references the four design cases without naming or briefly characterizing them, which would improve immediate clarity on the scope of the RtD analysis.
  2. [Related Work / Precedents] Some citations to inspirational art and design precedents could be supplemented with more recent HRI-specific studies on touch to better bridge the conceptual and applied domains.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the work's significance and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below, indicating planned revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Design Cases] The section on the four design research cases: these cases are presented as the foundation for deriving the design languages on shaping and embedding otherness, but the manuscript provides insufficient detail on specific design decisions, iterations, or observed outcomes in each case, making it difficult to evaluate how the strategies were operationalized or their transferability.

    Authors: We agree that the current level of detail in the design cases section limits traceability from specific decisions to the derived design languages. In the revised manuscript we will expand each case with concrete descriptions of key design decisions, iteration cycles, and qualitative observations from the reflective RtD process. These additions will be drawn from the documented histories of the cases while remaining focused on how otherness was shaped and embedded, thereby improving evaluation of operationalization and transferability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Conclusion] Conclusion: the central claim that embracing otherness fosters expressive and evocative robotic touch (rather than risking dominant negative responses) rests on reflective analysis, yet the discussion of tensions does not include any proposed evaluation methods, mitigation approaches, or criteria for assessing net-positive impact in practice, leaving generalizability as an untested assertion.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the conclusion currently offers reflections without explicit forward-looking guidance on evaluation. While the contribution is intentionally reflective and generative rather than empirical, we will revise the conclusion to propose suitable evaluation approaches for this type of work (e.g., interpretive studies examining ambiguity and meaning-making), mitigation strategies for the noted tensions and risks, and provisional criteria for net-positive impact such as expressiveness balanced against user comfort and agency. This will frame generalizability as a direction for subsequent research rather than an untested claim. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation is interpretive and self-contained

full rationale

The paper advances its central proposal—that otherness in robotic touch can be treated as a design quality to elicit ambiguity—through reflective analysis of external art/design precedents and four RtD cases, without any equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the claim to its inputs by construction. The design languages (why otherness matters, how to shape it, where to embed it) are articulated as outputs of this analysis rather than presupposed. No uniqueness theorems, ansatzes smuggled via citation, or renamings of known results are invoked in a way that forces the result. The argument remains open to external validation and does not collapse into tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the domain assumption that otherness is an inherent and leverageable property of robotic touch, drawn from HRI without new entities or fitted parameters introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Otherness of robotic touch can be deliberately shaped through design strategies to produce ambiguity and alternative interpretations
    Invoked as the core premise for the proposed design languages; treated as given from HRI rather than derived within the paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5468 in / 1150 out tokens · 45298 ms · 2026-05-08T07:26:18.921039+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

129 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andrea F Abate, Mariano Guida, Paolo Leoncini, Michele Nappi, and Stefano Ricciardi. 2009. A haptic-based approach to virtual training for aerospace industry.Journal of Visual Languages & Computing20, 5 (2009), 318–325

    2009

  2. [2]

    Ostrowski, David Puljiz, Pedro Reynolds-Cuéllar, Marcus Scheunemann, Michael Suguitan, and Dan Lockton

    Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, Maria Luce Lupetti, Michal Luria, Diana Löffler, Mafalda Gamboa, Lea Albaugh, Waki Kamino, Anastasia K. Ostrowski, David Puljiz, Pedro Reynolds-Cuéllar, Marcus Scheunemann, Michael Suguitan, and Dan Lockton. 2021. Collection of Metaphors for Human-Robot Interaction. InDe- signing Interactive Systems Conference 2021(Virtual Event, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3461778.3462060 2021

  3. [3]

    Lucy Anderson-Bashan, Benny Megidish, Hadas Erel, Iddo Wald, Guy Hoffman, Oren Zuckerman, and Andrey Grishko. 2018. The Greeting Machine: An Ab- stract Robotic Object for Opening Encounters. In2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525516

    work page doi:10.1109/roman.2018.8525516 2018

  4. [4]

    Ankit, Terence Yan King Ho, Amoolya Nirmal, Mohit Rameshchandra Kulkarni, Dino Accoto, and Nripan Mathews. 2022. Soft actuator materials for electrically driven haptic interfaces.Advanced Intelligent Systems4, 2 (2022), 2100061

    2022

  5. [5]

    2013.Robot visions

    Isaac Asimov. 2013.Robot visions. ibooks

    2013

  6. [6]

    Sima Ipakchian Askari. 2022. Separated by distance, connected by technology?: Perceptions, experiences and responses towards affective haptic devices. (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Madeline Balaam, Nadia Campo Woytuk, Marianela Ciolfi Felice, Ozgun Kilic Afsar, Anna Ståhl, and Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard. 2020. Intimate touch. Interactions27, 6 (Nov. 2020), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3427781

    work page doi:10.1145/3427781 2020

  8. [8]

    Christopher C Berger, Mar Gonzalez-Franco, Eyal Ofek, and Ken Hinckley. 2018. The uncanny valley of haptics.Science Robotics3, 17 (2018), eaar7010

    2018

  9. [9]

    Harvey Bewley and Laurens Boer. 2018. Designing Blo-nut: Design Principles, Choreography and Otherness in an Expressive Social Robot. InProceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Hong Kong, China)(DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1069–1080. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196817

    work page doi:10.1145/3196709.3196817 2018

  10. [10]

    Harvey Bewley and Anna Vallgårda. 2017. Provoking Performing Objects: Expanding the Design Space for Soft Robotics. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems(Edinburgh, United Kingdom)(DIS ’17 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064857.3079154

    work page doi:10.1145/3064857.3079154 2017

  11. [11]

    Shantonu Biswas and Yon Visell. 2021. Haptic perception, mechanics, and material technologies for virtual reality.Advanced Functional Materials31, 39 (2021), 2008186

    2021

  12. [12]

    Laurens Boer and Harvey Bewley. 2018. Reconfiguring the Appearance and Expression of Social Robots by Acknowledging their Otherness. InProceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Hong Kong, China)(DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 667–677. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196743

    work page doi:10.1145/3196709.3196743 2018

  13. [13]

    Laurens Boer, Anna Vallgårda, and Ben Cahill. 2017. Giving Form to a Hedonic Haptics Player. InProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(Edinburgh, United Kingdom)(DIS ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 903–914. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663. 3064792

    work page doi:10.1145/3064663 2017

  14. [14]

    Jacqueline Borgstedt, Shaun Macdonald, Jacob Bhattacharyya, Frank Pollick, and Stephen Brewster. 2026. Uncanny Touch? Investigating the Influence of Lifelike Haptic Cues on User Perceptions of a Social Robot. InProceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction(Edinburgh, Scotland, UK)(HRI ’26). Association for Computing ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3757279.3785620 2026

  15. [15]

    Cynthia Breazeal. 2003. Toward sociable robots.Robotics and autonomous systems42, 3-4 (2003), 167–175

    2003

  16. [16]

    2004.Designing sociable robots

    Cynthia Breazeal. 2004.Designing sociable robots. MIT press

    2004

  17. [17]

    Breazeal and B

    C. Breazeal and B. Scassellati. 1999. How to build robots that make friends and influence people. InProceedings 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Human and Environment Friendly Robots with High Intelligence and Emotional Quotients (Cat. No.99CH36289), Vol. 2. 858–863 vol.2. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.1999.812787 D...

    work page doi:10.1109/iros.1999.812787 1999

  18. [18]

    2012.Multisensory development

    Andrew J Bremner, David J Lewkowicz, and Charles Spence. 2012.Multisensory development. Oxford University Press

    2012

  19. [19]

    2004.RUR (Rossum’s universal robots)

    Karel Capek. 2004.RUR (Rossum’s universal robots). Penguin

    2004

  20. [20]

    Dan K Chen. 2021. Making Friends by Making Them. https://dankc.com/ Accessed: 2025-08-23

    2021

  21. [21]

    2012.File > Save As > Intimacy

    Dan Kun-yi Chen. 2012.File > Save As > Intimacy. Master’s Thesis. MIT Media Lab. https://dankc.com/about/assets/dan_thesis.pdf

    2012

  22. [22]

    Tiffany L Chen, Chih-Hung King, Andrea L Thomaz, and Charles C Kemp

  23. [23]

    InProceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction

    Touched by a robot: An investigation of subjective responses to robot- initiated touch. InProceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction. 457–464

  24. [24]

    2012.The deepest sense: A cultural history of touch

    Constance Classen. 2012.The deepest sense: A cultural history of touch. University of Illinois Press

    2012

  25. [25]

    Heather Culbertson, Cara M Nunez, Ali Israr, Frances Lau, Freddy Abnousi, and Allison M Okamura. 2018. A social haptic device to create continuous lateral motion using sequential normal indentation. In2018 IEEE haptics symposium (HAPTICS). IEEE, 32–39

    2018

  26. [26]

    Schorr, and Allison M

    Heather Culbertson, Samuel B. Schorr, and Allison M. Okamura. 2018. Haptics: The Present and Future of Artificial Touch Sensation.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems1, 1 (2018), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-control-060117-105043 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-control- 060117-105043

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-control- 2018

  27. [27]

    2021.The new breed: How to think about robots

    Kate Darling. 2021.The new breed: How to think about robots. Penguin UK

    2021

  28. [28]

    Carl DiSalvo, Jonathan Lukens, Thomas Lodato, Tom Jenkins, and Tanyoung Kim. 2014. Making public things: how HCI design can express matters of concern. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)(CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2397–2406. https://doi.org/10.1145/...

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557359 2014

  29. [29]

    Knut Drewing, Claire Weyel, Hevi Celebi, and Dilan Kaya. 2018. Systematic Relations between Affective and Sensory Material Dimensions in Touch.IEEE Transactions on Haptics11, 4 (2018), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2018. 2836427

    work page doi:10.1109/toh.2018 2018

  30. [30]

    2024.Speculative Everything, With a new preface by the authors: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming

    Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2024.Speculative Everything, With a new preface by the authors: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT press

    2024

  31. [31]

    Eid and Hussein Al Osman

    Mohamad A. Eid and Hussein Al Osman. 2016. Affective Haptics: Current Research and Future Directions.IEEE Access4 (2016), 26–40. https://doi.org/10. 1109/ACCESS.2015.2497316

    work page arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Hadas Erel, Tzachi Shem Tov, Yoav Kessler, and Oren Zuckerman. 2019. Robots are Always Social: Robotic Movements are Automatically Interpreted as Social Cues. InExtended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk)(CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.or...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290607.3312758 2019

  33. [33]

    David Escobar-Castillejos, Julieta Noguez, Luis Neri, Alejandra Magana, and Bedrich Benes. 2016. A review of simulators with haptic devices for medical training.Journal of medical systems40, 4 (2016), 104

    2016

  34. [34]

    Francesco Ferrari, Maria Paola Paladino, and Jolanda Jetten. 2016. Blurring human–machine distinctions: Anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness.International Journal of Social Robotics8, 2 (2016), 287–302

    2016

  35. [35]

    Foo, Lucy E

    Esther W. Foo, Lucy E. Dunne, and Brad Holschuh. 2021. User Expectations and Mental Models for Communicating Emotions through Compressive & Warm Affective Garment Actuation.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies5, 1 (March 2021), 1–25. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3448097

    work page doi:10.1145/3448097 2021

  36. [36]

    Antonio Frisoli and Daniele Leonardis. 2024. Wearable haptics for virtual reality and beyond.Nature Reviews Electrical Engineering1, 10 (2024), 666–679

    2024

  37. [37]

    Bill Gaver and John Bowers. 2012. Annotated portfolios.Interactions19, 4 (July 2012), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212889

    work page doi:10.1145/2212877.2212889 2012

  38. [38]

    William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA)(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 937–946. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2208538 2012

  39. [39]

    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(Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA)(CHI ’03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 642611.642653

    work page arXiv 2003

  40. [40]

    Gaver, John Bowers, Andrew Boucher, Hans Gellerson, Sarah Pen- nington, Albrecht Schmidt, Anthony Steed, Nicholas Villars, and Brendan Walker

    William W. Gaver, John Bowers, Andrew Boucher, Hans Gellerson, Sarah Pen- nington, Albrecht Schmidt, Anthony Steed, Nicholas Villars, and Brendan Walker. 2004. The drift table: designing for ludic engagement. InCHI ’04 Ex- tended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Vienna, Austria)(CHI EA ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY...

    work page doi:10.1145/985921.985947 2004

  41. [41]

    Nur Al-huda Hamdan, Adrian Wagner, Simon Voelker, Jürgen Steimle, and Jan Borchers. 2019. Springlets: Expressive, Flexible and Silent On-Skin Tactile Interfaces. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk)(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300718 2019

  42. [42]

    Blake Hannaford and Allison M Okamura. 2016. Haptics. InSpringer handbook of robotics. Springer, 1063–1084

    2016

  43. [43]

    Marc Hassenzahl, Jan Borchers, Susanne Boll, Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten, and Volker Wulf. 2020. Otherware: How to Best Interact with Autonomous Systems.Interactions28, 1 (dec 2020), 54–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3436942

    work page doi:10.1145/3436942 2020

  44. [44]

    Hauser, Sarah McIntyre, Ali Israr, Hakan Olausson, and Gregory J

    Steven C. Hauser, Sarah McIntyre, Ali Israr, Hakan Olausson, and Gregory J. Gerling. 2019. Uncovering Human-to-Human Physical Interactions that Underlie Emotional and Affective Touch Communication. In2019 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC). IEEE, Tokyo, Japan, 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1109/WHC. 2019.8816169

    work page doi:10.1109/whc 2019

  45. [45]

    Alice Haynes, Melanie F Simons, Tim Helps, Yuichi Nakamura, and Jonathan Rossiter. 2019. A wearable skin-stretching tactile interface for human–robot and human–human communication.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters4, 2 (2019), 1641–1646

    2019

  46. [46]

    Hertenstein, Rachel Holmes, Margaret McCullough, and Dacher Keltner

    Matthew J. Hertenstein, Rachel Holmes, Margaret McCullough, and Dacher Keltner. 2009. The communication of emotion via touch.Emotion9, 4 (2009), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016108

    work page doi:10.1037/a0016108 2009

  47. [47]

    Hertenstein, Dacher Keltner, Betsy App, Brittany A

    Matthew J. Hertenstein, Dacher Keltner, Betsy App, Brittany A. Bulleit, and Ariane R. Jaskolka. 2006. Touch communicates distinct emotions.Emotion6, 3 (2006), 528–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.528

    work page doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.528 2006

  48. [48]

    Guy Hoffman. 2020. The social uncanniness of robotic companions. InCulturally sustainable social robotics. IOS Press, 535–539

    2020

  49. [49]

    Guy Hoffman and Wendy Ju. 2014. Designing robots with movement in mind. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction3, 1 (2014), 91–122

    2014

  50. [50]

    Guy Hoffman, Oren Zuckerman, Gilad Hirschberger, Michal Luria, and Tal Shani Sherman. 2015. Design and Evaluation of a Peripheral Robotic Con- versation Companion. InProceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Human-Robot Interaction(Portland, Oregon, USA)(HRI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3–10. h...

    work page doi:10.1145/2696454.2696495 2015

  51. [51]

    2017.That robot touch that means so much: on the psychological effects of human-robot touch

    Laura Hoffmann. 2017.That robot touch that means so much: on the psychological effects of human-robot touch. Ph. D. Dissertation. Dissertation, Duisburg, Essen, Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2017

    2017

  52. [52]

    Marius Hoggenmüller, Wen-Ying Lee, Luke Hespanhol, Malte Jung, and Mar- tin Tomitsch. 2021. Eliciting New Perspectives in RtD Studies through An- notated Portfolios: A Case Study of Robotic Artefacts. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Virtual Event, USA)(DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3461778.3462134 2021

  53. [53]

    2018.Designing with the body: Somaesthetic interaction design

    Kristina Hook. 2018.Designing with the body: Somaesthetic interaction design. MIt Press

    2018

  54. [54]

    Yuhan Hu and Guy Hoffman. 2019. Using Skin Texture Change to Design Emotion Expression in Social Robots. In2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, Daegu, Korea (South), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673012

    work page doi:10.1109/hri.2019.8673012 2019

  55. [55]

    Yuhan Hu and Guy Hoffman. 2022. What Can a Robot’s Skin Be? Designing Texture-Changing Skin for Human-Robot Social Interaction.J. Hum.-Robot Interact.(feb 2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3532772 Just Accepted

    work page doi:10.1145/3532772 2022

  56. [56]

    Yuhan Hu, Peide Huang, Mouli Sivapurapu, and Jian Zhang. 2025. ELEGNT: Expressive and Functional Movement Design for Non-Anthropomorphic Robot. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12493

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Yuhan Hu, Jasmine Lu, Nathan Scinto-Madonich, Miguel Alfonso Pineros, Pe- dro Lopes, and Guy Hoffman. 2024. Designing Plant-Driven Actuators for Robots to Grow, Age, and Decay. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Design- ing Interactive Systems Conference(Copenhagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2481–2496. https: ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3661519 2024

  58. [58]

    Gijs Huisman. 2017. Social Touch Technology: A Survey of Haptic Technology for Social Touch.IEEE Transactions on Haptics10, 3 (2017), 391–408. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2017.2650221

    work page doi:10.1109/toh.2017.2650221 2017

  59. [59]

    Gijs Huisman, Aduén Darriba Frederiks, Betsy Van Dijk, Dirk Hevlen, and Ben Kröse. 2013. The TaSSt: Tactile sleeve for social touch. In2013 World Haptics Conference (WHC). 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1109/WHC.2013.6548410

    work page doi:10.1109/whc.2013.6548410 2013

  60. [60]

    Hayeon Hwang. 2019. Expressive Tactile Controls. InProceedings of the Thir- teenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Tempe, Arizona, USA)(TEI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1145/3294109.3300991

    work page doi:10.1145/3294109.3300991 2019

  61. [61]

    Sima Ipakchianaskari, Ville Harjunen, Michiel Spape, Antal Haans, Niklas Ravaja, and Wijnand Ijsselsteijn. 2021. Receiving a mediated touch from your partner vs. a male stranger: How visual feedback of touch and its sender influ- ence touch experience.IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing(2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    Carey Jewitt, Sara Price, Jürgen Steimle, Gijs Huisman, Lili Golmohammadi, Narges Pourjafarian, William Frier, Thomas Howard, Sima Ipakchian Askari, Michela Ornati, et al. 2021. Manifesto for digital social touch in crisis.Frontiers in Computer Science(2021), 97

    2021

  63. [63]

    Yueyao Jiang, Xiwen Yao, Yuxin Zhu, Xinjun Gong, Zhihao Yao, Yut Wong, Yijie Guo, and Haipeng Mi. 2025. Miau-BOT: A Haptic Creature Design for Enhancing Emotional Regulation in Driving Scenarios. InProceedings of the Otherness as a Quality in Designing Expressive Robotic Touch DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore Extended Abstracts of the CHI C...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706599.3720107 2025

  64. [64]

    Stanley E Jones and A Elaine Yarbrough. 1985. A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch.Communications Monographs52, 1 (1985), 19–56

    1985

  65. [65]

    Heekyoung Jung and Erik Stolterman. 2011. Form and materiality in interaction design: a new approach to HCI. InCHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(CHI EA ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1979742.1979619

    work page arXiv 2011

  66. [66]

    Pavel Karpashevich, Kristina Höök, and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2026. Inside the Mirror, Wearing My own Body: Why UX Should Engage Monstrous Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 234, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790753

    work page doi:10.1145/3772318.3790753 2026

  67. [67]

    Jin Hee (Heather) Kim, Kunpeng Huang, Simone White, Melissa Conroy, and Cindy Hsin-Liu Kao. 2021. KnitDermis: Fabricating Tactile On-Body Interfaces Through Machine Knitting. InDesigning Interactive Systems Conference 2021 (Virtual Event, USA)(DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1183–1200. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462007

    work page doi:10.1145/3461778.3462007 2021

  68. [68]

    Kim and Sean Follmer

    Lawrence H. Kim and Sean Follmer. 2019. SwarmHaptics: Haptic Display with Swarm Robots. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’19. ACM Press, Glasgow, Scotland Uk, 1–13. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300918

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300918 2019

  69. [69]

    Amy Koike, Michael Wehner, and Bilge Mutlu. 2024. Sprout: Designing Expres- sivity for Robots Using Fiber-Embedded Actuator. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction(Boulder, CO, USA)(HRI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634983

    work page doi:10.1145/3610977.3634983 2024

  70. [70]

    Susan J Lederman and Roberta L Klatzky. 2009. Haptic perception: A tutorial. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics71, 7 (2009), 1439–1459

    2009

  71. [71]

    Eva Lenz, Sarah Diefenbach, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2013. Exploring relation- ships between interaction attributes and experience. InProceedings of the 6th international conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces. 126– 135

    2013

  72. [72]

    Edouard Leroy, Ronan Hinchet, and Herbert Shea. 2020. Multimode hydraulically amplified electrostatic actuators for wearable haptics.Advanced Materials32, 36 (2020), 2002564

    2020

  73. [73]

    Diana Löffler, Judith Dörrenbächer, Julika Welge, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2020. Hybridity as Design Strategy for Service Robots to Become Domestic Products. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3334480.3382832 2020

  74. [74]

    Line S Löken and Håkan Olausson. 2010. The skin as a social organ.Experimental brain research204, 3 (2010), 305–314

    2010

  75. [75]

    Line S Löken, Johan Wessberg, Francis McGlone, and Håkan Olausson. 2009. Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans.Nature neuro- science12, 5 (2009), 547–548

    2009

  76. [76]

    Karon E MacLean. 2008. Haptic interaction design for everyday interfaces. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics4, 1 (2008), 149–194

    2008

  77. [77]

    Alex Mazursky, Jas Brooks, Beza Desta, and Pedro Lopes. 2024. ThermalGrasp: Enabling Thermal Feedback even while Grasping and Walking. In2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 342–353. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/VR58804.2024.00056

    work page doi:10.1109/vr58804.2024.00056 2024

  78. [78]

    Alex Mazursky, Madeleine DeVoe, and Sarah Sebo. 2022. Physical touch from a robot caregiver: Examining factors that shape patient experience. In2022 31st IEEE International conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 1578–1585

    2022

  79. [79]

    Alex Mazursky, Jacob Serfaty, and Pedro Lopes. 2024. Stick&Slip: Altering Fin- gerpad Friction via Liquid Coatings. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 433, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642299

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642299 2024

  80. [80]

    Sarah McIntyre, Steven C Hauser, Anikó Kusztor, Rebecca Boehme, Athanasia Moungou, Peder Mortvedt Isager, Lina Homman, Giovanni Novembre, Saad S Nagi, Ali Israr, et al. 2021. The language of social touch is intuitive and quantifi- able.Psychological Science(2021), 09567976211059801

    2021

Showing first 80 references.