Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Touch and Tell: Multimodal Decoding of Human Emotions and Social Gestures for Robots

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A social robot can decode ten emotions from touch and sound at 40% accuracy and six social gestures at 90.74%, with multimodal models outperforming touch-only and sound-only models.

desk verdict Useful sensor plus public dataset with plausible core results, but the multimodal-over-unimodal claim is statistically unsupported and the prose does not match the tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03300 v2 pith:C7XGJAGS submitted 2024-12-04 cs.RO cs.LG

Qiaoqiao Ren , Remko Proesmans , Yuanbo Hou , Francis wyffels , Tony Belpaeme This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.LG
keywords socialroboticsaffectivetouchtactilesensingemotionrecognitiongestureclassificationmultimodalfusionhuman-robotinteractionpiezoresistivepressuresensor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a social robot can extract socially meaningful information from human touch when the touch is recorded simultaneously as pressure on a custom forearm sensor and as sound, and that combining the two modalities works better than either alone. Twenty-eight participants conveyed ten emotions and six predefined social gestures to a Pepper robot. The authors report statistically significant consistency across participants in both emotions and gestures, though some emotions such as surprise and disgust were expressed much less consistently than others. A support vector machine on fused touch-and-sound features reached 40% accuracy for ten emotions, while a CNN-LSTM reached 90.74% for six gestures, with multimodal models beating each unimodal model. If the finding holds, it would mean touch itself carries decodable affective and social information, but structured gestures are far easier for a robot to read than nuanced emotional states.

What carries the argument

The central object is a custom 5-by-5 piezoresistive pressure grid based on a Velostat smart-textile design, mounted on the robot's forearm and paired with a 44.1 kHz microphone; each 10-second interaction yields tactile frames at 45 Hz and a synchronized audio stream. From these the authors extract tactile features covering mean and max pressure, pressure variance and gradient, contact area, touch counts, and touch durations, plus audio features such as MFCCs, spectral centroid, spectral bandwidth, zero crossing rate, and RMS energy. The argument then rests on fusing these feature sets for classical models (SVM, Random Forest, Decision Tree) and deep models (CNN-LSTM, CNN-GRU, CNN-Transformer, MTRCNN, PANNs), with PERMANOVA used to test cross-condition differences and intraclass correlation coefficients used to quantify cross-participant consistency.

What would settle it

Run the same data collection with a robot arm visibly armored or clearly damage-proof, and compare the anger and disgust touches and their classification accuracy; if full-force expressions turn previously indistinguishable emotion pairs such as disgust versus surprise into separable classes, the reported 40% ceiling and low ICC values are artifacts of self-censoring rather than fixed properties of touch communication.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that touch-based emotion and gesture communication toward a robot is decodable by data-driven methods, and that tactile and auditory signals complement each other. The authors built a 5-by-5 piezoresistive pressure grid and a microphone into a Pepper robot, collected spontaneous 10-second touches expressing ten emotions and six predefined gestures, and found consistent cross-participant expression patterns, with all intraclass correlation coefficients statistically significant though many are low. Multimodal feature fusion outperformed sound-only and touch-only models: an SVM reached 40% accuracy for emotions versus 36.11% touch-only and 22.55% sound-only, while a CNN-LSTM reached 90.74% for gestures versus 79.63% touch-only and 67.04% sound-only. The paper also claims that emotions sharing arousal or valence, such as calming versus sadness, comfort versus sadness, and disgust versus surprise, are not significantly distinguishable by these features, and that gesture decoding runs about 50 percentage points more accurate than emotion decoding.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes participants expressed the emotions naturally and at full intensity, but several participants said they held back forceful expressions of anger and disgust to avoid damaging the robot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot equipped with only a forearm pressure grid and a microphone can classify six social touch gestures at 90.74%, suggesting structured touch acts are readable enough for practical social interaction.
  • Fusing tactile and audio features consistently beats either modality alone, so robot touch-perception systems should not rely on touch-only or sound-only decoding.
  • Emotions that share arousal or valence will remain hard to tell apart from touch alone, so additional contextual or multimodal cues are needed for reliable affective decoding.
  • Designing for structured gestures first is a sensible path, because gestures are expressed more consistently and decoded far more accurately than emotions.
  • Ten-emotion decoding at 40% is four times chance level yet still low, with some emotions such as attention, anger, happiness, and calming far more decodable than disgust, sadness, and surprise.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the 40% emotion ceiling partly reflects participants suppressing forceful anger and disgust for fear of damaging the robot, a visibly damage-proof robot could shift those accuracies and change the confusion structure.
  • Beyond the paper: the same sensor-plus-microphone setup could be extended to continuous arousal and valence regression rather than discrete emotion labels, since most confusions line up with circumplex quadrants.
  • Beyond the paper: because all participants shared one cultural background, the reported consistency values likely represent within-culture bounds, and cross-cultural touch expression is a direct next test.
  • Beyond the paper: the relatively weak sound-only results hint that touch sounds carry information about contact dynamics more than emotional valence, so combining touch with vision or physiological signals may be necessary for robust affect decoding.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a data collection and classification study in which 28 participants expressed 10 emotions and 6 social touch gestures to a Pepper robot equipped with a custom 5x5 piezoresistive pressure grid and a microphone. The authors report consistency statistics (ICC), multivariate dissimilarity (PERMANOVA), and unimodal versus multimodal classification results. The headline results are a multimodal SVM emotion accuracy of 40% across ten classes and a multimodal CNN-LSTM gesture accuracy of 90.74% across six classes, with the claim that fusing touch and sound 'significantly outperforms unimodal approaches.' The manuscript also reports participant questionnaires on the ease and similarity of emotional touch expression.

Significance. The study is of value to the affective touch and human-robot interaction communities. It contributes a reproducible custom tactile sensor design, a new dataset of spontaneous emotional and gestural touch, and a systematic comparison of eight model architectures across three input modalities; the code and data are publicly available. The gesture classification result (90.74%) and the emotion classification result (40% versus a 10% chance level) on held-out participants are well above chance, and the ICC/PERMANOVA analyses provide descriptive evidence about expression consistency. If the statistical support for the central multimodal-advantage claim is repaired, the paper would be a solid empirical contribution.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV.D.1 and Abstract] The statement that 'the multimodal integration of touch and sound significantly outperforms unimodal approaches' is not supported by any inferential test. Tables III and IV report only point accuracies (averaged over 10 training runs per Section IV.C), with no confidence intervals, no standard deviations, and no paired comparison between multimodal and unimodal models. The test set contains only 6 participants, each contributing 3 repeated rounds per condition, so sample-level accuracy differences are not independent. The authors should add a participant-clustered paired test (e.g., per-participant bootstrap, mixed-effects model, or Wilcoxon signed-rank test on per-participant accuracies) and report effect sizes and confidence intervals; until then, the word 'significantly' should be removed or qualified.
  2. [IV.D.1] The reported improvement percentages are inconsistent with Tables III and IV. For emotions, the text says the multimodal model improved by 3.89% over touch and 11.67% over sound, but from Table IV the SVM multimodal accuracy (40.00) exceeds the touch-only SVM (36.11) by 3.89 percentage points and the sound-only SVM (22.55) by 17.45 percentage points, not 11.67. For gestures, the text says improvements of 11.85% and 9.35%, but from Table III the CNN-LSTM multimodal accuracy (90.74) exceeds the sound-only CNN-LSTM (67.04) by 23.70 points and the touch-only version (79.63) by 11.11 points. The prose appears to mix numbers across different model architectures. Please present a model-by-model comparison with consistent difference calculations, or explicitly state which model's gap is being reported.
  3. [IV.D.1] The claim that the 40% emotion accuracy is 'significantly higher than the chance level of 10% (p<0.05)' is made without naming the test. A sample-level binomial test would be invalid because the 180 test samples come from only 6 participants with 3 repeated trials each. The authors should report a participant-clustered test, for example a permutation test or a one-sample test on per-participant accuracies, or remove the significance claim.
  4. [IV.A] The evaluation relies on a single random split of 22 training participants and 6 test participants. Because each participant contributes multiple correlated samples, the estimate on a 6-participant test set can be highly variable and depends on which participants are selected. Please report participant-level cross-validation (e.g., multiple leave-several-participants-out splits) or at least bootstrap the test set at the participant level to provide confidence intervals around the headline accuracies.
  5. [III.A.4] Participants reported fearing damage to the robot when expressing 'Anger' and 'Disgust' and requested guidelines on safe force. This suggests that forceful, high-arousal expressions may be under-represented in the dataset. Since the paper interprets the low distinguishability of certain emotions and the 40% emotion accuracy as properties of touch communication, the authors should quantify the impact of this confound, for example by reporting whether maximum pressure or force features differ systematically between these emotions and other emotions, and should connect this feedback to the decoding results. The limitation is acknowledged in the feedback section but is not discussed in relation to the classification outcomes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV.C.1] The paragraph under the heading 'Classical machine learning models' states 'We use the Adam optimiser [49], with a default learning rate of 0.0001. Each model trains for 100 epochs.' This likely belongs to the deep learning models subsection and is misplaced.
  2. [Fig. 7] The caption of Fig. 7 says 'CNN_LSTM confusion matrix for emotions,' but the figure shows gesture classification results; the caption should read 'for gestures.'
  3. [III.B] The number of principal components retained for the ICC analysis is not stated; please specify this parameter, as it affects the reported ICC values.
  4. [IV.D.1] The sentence 'both the SVM model with a linear kernel and the CNN_GRU model showed the highest overall accuracy' is confusing because CNN-GRU is not a kernel model; please rephrase to describe each model separately.
  5. [III.C] There are typographical artifacts such as 'PERMANOV A' instead of 'PERMANOVA'; these should be corrected throughout.
  6. [IV.D.1] The sentence reporting a one-sample t-test against the 37.5% human baseline gives t(31) = -2.99, p = 0.99 but does not clarify what mean accuracy was tested or why a negative t-value accompanies p = 0.99; please rephrase and report the actual comparison and direction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central results are held-out empirical measurements, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical classification study rather than a derivation chain: models are trained on labeled touch and audio features from 22 participants and evaluated on 6 held-out participants (Section IV.A), so the headline numbers (40% emotion accuracy, 90.74% gesture accuracy) are measurements, not consequences of definitions, fitted constants, or self-referential premises. No equation in the paper reduces the target output to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The self-citations present are not load-bearing: [35] is only a sensor-design antecedent that is fully re-specified in Section II.A.1, [29] is background on prior gesture classification, and [46] supplies one of several deep architectures (MTRCNN) while the headline classifiers are SVM and CNN-LSTM built from external references. The claim that multimodal integration 'significantly outperforms' unimodal models lacks paired inferential statistics and error bars, but that is a statistical-support weakness, not circularity. Likewise, the participant concern about suppressing force for Anger/Disgust (Section III.A.4) is an external-validity limitation, not a circular step. The paper's analyses (ICC, PERMANOVA, classifier comparisons) are self-contained against the collected data, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the quality of the sensor data, the validity of self-reported emotional labels, and standard statistical assumptions. Many of these are reasonable but unverified, and the repeated-measures structure together with possible suppression of forceful touch adds risk.

free parameters (3)
  • Classifier hyperparameters (SVM kernel/C, RF depth, DT depth, NN architecture and training settings) = Grid-searched or manually set
    Reported accuracies depend on these choices; they were selected via 10-fold cross-validation on the training split, so they are data-dependent.
  • Test/train participant split (22 train, 6 test) = Random split, no seed reported
    Results are point estimates on one random split; no repeated splitting or confidence intervals are given, so the 40% and 90.74% figures may vary with the split.
  • Number of PCA components used for ICC computation = Not reported
    The consistency analysis reduces features with PCA but does not state how many components were retained; this choice affects the ICC values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Participant-reported labels (intended emotion or gesture) are valid ground truth and participants expressed them naturally.
    Section II-B2 and III-A4: participants self-reported their intentions; feedback shows some suppressed forceful expressions for anger and disgust for fear of damaging the robot, so the naturalness assumption is partially violated.
  • domain assumption The custom 5x5 piezoresistive sensor and microphone provide a faithful, sufficiently informative signal of touch.
    Section II-A: sensor sampling at 45 Hz on a 25-taxel grid is assumed adequate, but no calibration against known forces or validation of spatial and temporal resolution is reported.
  • domain assumption The hand-picked audio and tactile feature sets capture the information needed for decoding.
    Section II-C features are adopted from prior work (references [37] and [4]); no feature ablation or evidence shows that the chosen set is sufficient for the 10-class emotion task.
  • domain assumption Statistical tests treat the 10-second trials as independent observations, although each participant contributes multiple rounds.
    Section III-B/C: ICC and PERMANOVA use repeated measures from the same 28 participants without a random effects structure, which can inflate significance.
  • domain assumption Russell's circumplex model is an appropriate basis for selecting the emotion set.
    Section II-B1 uses the model to sample emotions across arousal and valence quadrants; the model itself is a standard but not universally accepted account of affect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Touch and Tell: Multimodal Decoding of Human Emotions and Social Gestures for Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C7XGJAGS

@misc{pith2026241203300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Touch and Tell: Multimodal Decoding of Human Emotions and Social Gestures for Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C7XGJAGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03300}
}
read the original abstract

Human emotions are complex and can be conveyed through nuanced touch gestures. Previous research has primarily focused on how humans recognize emotions through touch or on identifying key features of emotional expression for robots. However, there is a gap in understanding how reliably these emotions and gestures can be communicated to robots via touch and interpreted using data driven methods. This study investigates the consistency and distinguishability of emotional and gestural expressions through touch and sound. To this end, we integrated a custom piezoresistive pressure sensor as well as a microphone on a social robot. Twenty-eight participants first conveyed ten different emotions to the robot using spontaneous touch gestures, then they performed six predefined social touch gestures. Our findings reveal statistically significant consistency in both emotion and gesture expression among participants. However, some emotions exhibited low intraclass correlation values, and certain emotions with similar levels of arousal or valence did not show significant differences in their conveyance. To investigate emotion and social gesture decoding within affective human-robot tactile interaction, we developed single-modality models and multimodal models integrating tactile and auditory features. A support vector machine (SVM) model trained on multimodal features achieved the highest accuracy for classifying ten emotions, reaching 40 %.For gesture classification, a Convolutional Neural Network- Long Short-Term Memory Network (CNN-LSTM) achieved 90.74 % accuracy. Our results demonstrate that even though the unimodal models have the potential to decode emotions and touch gestures, the multimodal integration of touch and sound significantly outperforms unimodal approaches, enhancing the decoding of both emotions and gestures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental setup. (a) Layered structure. Two extra layers of TPU cover the otherwise exposed traces, omitted for clarity. (b) Complete sensor with readout electronics. (c) Equivalent circuit. D0..5 and A0 are digital and analog pins of the readout MCU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure of the tactile sensor. “Sadness” and “Confusion” belong to the low arousal and negative valence quadrant (Quadrant 3), while “Comfort” and “calming” are from the low arousal and positive valence quadrant (Quadrant 4). “Attention” is categorized as a neutral emotion (Quadrant 0). Before data collection, participants were provided with definitions of these ten emotions to en￾sure they understood and agreed w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Russell’s Circumplex Model of emotions [36]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Questionnaire results. 2) Variability analysis for tactile gesture: Following the same procedure in affective touch variability analysis, refer to Subsection III-C1, the features do not follow a normal distribution. Therefore, we used PERMANOVA, which reveals a signifi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Consistency analysis. TABLE II: ICC of tactile gestures among participants, the bars show the ICC values of each gesture. Emotions Hold Pat Poke Rub Tap Tickle ICC 0.64, p < 0.001 0.14, p < 0.001 0.16, p < 0.001 0.19, p < 0.001 0.35, p < 0.001 0.31, p < 0.001 B. Model …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SVM confusion matrix for emotions. mance of the tactile gestures surpasses that of the affective touch, which achieved 90.74%. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CNN_LSTM confusion matrix for emotions. ferent emotions. Previous research asked participants [17] to convey four emotions using specific gestures like tapping, rubbing, and pressing. In our research, participants were not given a specific list of gestures, leading to …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Sound-Based Recognition of Touch Gestures and Emotions for Enhanced Human-Robot Interaction

    cs.HC 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Audio-only recognition of touch gestures and emotional arousal/valence is feasible on the Pepper robot using a 0.24-million-parameter CNN, with accuracies around 84% for gestures and 54% for five-way arousal-valence states.

  2. Situated Haptic Interaction: Exploring the Role of Context in Affective Perception of Robotic Touch

    cs.RO 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a 32-person experiment, situational video context dominated the perceived valence of a robot's haptic feedback, while the haptic signal dominated perceived arousal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Applications of affective computing in human-robot interaction: State- of-art and challenges for manufacturing,

    R. Gervasi, F. Barravecchia, L. Mastrogiacomo, and F. Franceschini, “Applications of affective computing in human-robot interaction: State- of-art and challenges for manufacturing,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture , vol. 237, no. 6-7, pp. 815–832, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Survey on emotional body gesture recognition,

    F. Noroozi, C. A. Corneanu, D. Kami ´nska, T. Sapi´nski, S. Escalera, and G. Anbarjafari, “Survey on emotional body gesture recognition,” IEEE transactions on affective computing , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 505–523, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    First impressions count! the role of the human’s emotional state on rapport established with an empathic versus neutral virtual therapist,

    H. Ranjbartabar, D. Richards, A. A. Bilgin, and C. Kutay, “First impressions count! the role of the human’s emotional state on rapport established with an empathic versus neutral virtual therapist,” IEEE transactions on affective computing , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 788–800, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Touch communicates distinct emotions.,

    M. J. Hertenstein, D. Keltner, B. App, B. A. Bulleit, and A. R. Jaskolka, “Touch communicates distinct emotions.,” Emotion, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 528, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Social touch in human–computer interac- tion,

    J. B. Van Erp and A. Toet, “Social touch in human–computer interac- tion,” Frontiers in digital humanities , vol. 2, p. 2, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Touching virtual humans: Haptic responses reveal the emotional impact of affective agents,

    I. Ahmed, V . J. Harjunen, G. Jacucci, N. Ravaja, T. Ruotsalo, and M. M. Spapé, “Touching virtual humans: Haptic responses reveal the emotional impact of affective agents,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 331–342, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Physiological responses to affective tele-touch during induced emotional stimuli,

    J.-J. Cabibihan and S. S. Chauhan, “Physiological responses to affective tele-touch during induced emotional stimuli,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 108–118, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Individuals’ stress assessment using human- smartphone interaction analysis,

    M. Ciman and K. Wac, “Individuals’ stress assessment using human- smartphone interaction analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Com- puting, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 51–65, 2016. 13

    work page 2016

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Empathic touch by relational agents,

    T. W. Bickmore, R. Fernando, L. Ring, and D. Schulman, “Empathic touch by relational agents,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 60–71, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    Conveying emo- tions through device-initiated touch,

    M. Teyssier, G. Bailly, C. Pelachaud, and E. Lecolinet, “Conveying emo- tions through device-initiated touch,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1477–1488, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Autonomic modu- lations to cardiac dynamics in response to affective touch: Differences between social touch and self-touch,

    D. Candia-Rivera, R. Boehme, and P. C. Salamone, “Autonomic modu- lations to cardiac dynamics in response to affective touch: Differences between social touch and self-touch,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Design and evaluation of a touch-centered calming interaction with a social robot,

    Y . S. Sefidgar, K. E. MacLean, S. Yohanan, H. M. Van der Loos, E. A. Croft, and E. J. Garland, “Design and evaluation of a touch-centered calming interaction with a social robot,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 108–121, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    The science of interpersonal touch: an overview,

    A. Gallace and C. Spence, “The science of interpersonal touch: an overview,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 246–259, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    Affective haptics: Current research and future directions,

    M. A. Eid and H. Al Osman, “Affective haptics: Current research and future directions,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 26–40, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    The grenoble system for the social touch challenge at icmi 2015,

    V .-C. Ta, W. Johal, M. Portaz, E. Castelli, and D. Vaufreydaz, “The grenoble system for the social touch challenge at icmi 2015,” in Pro- ceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pp. 391–398, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    S. J. Yohanan, The haptic creature: Social human-robot interaction through affective touch . PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Haptic empathy: Conveying emotional meaning through vi- brotactile feedback,

    Y . Ju, D. Zheng, D. Hynds, G. Chernyshov, K. Kunze, and K. Mi- namizawa, “Haptic empathy: Conveying emotional meaning through vi- brotactile feedback,” in Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1–7, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Tactile sensing—from humans to humanoids,

    R. S. Dahiya, G. Metta, M. Valle, and G. Sandini, “Tactile sensing—from humans to humanoids,” IEEE transactions on robotics , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    The tasst: Tactile sleeve for social touch,

    G. Huisman, A. D. Frederiks, B. Van Dijk, D. Hevlen, and B. Kröse, “The tasst: Tactile sleeve for social touch,” in 2013 World Haptics Conference (WHC), pp. 211–216, IEEE, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    A new silicone structure for uskin—a soft, distributed, digital 3-axis skin sensor and its integration on the humanoid robot icub,

    T. P. Tomo, M. Regoli, A. Schmitz, L. Natale, H. Kristanto, S. Somlor, L. Jamone, G. Metta, and S. Sugano, “A new silicone structure for uskin—a soft, distributed, digital 3-axis skin sensor and its integration on the humanoid robot icub,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters ...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Methods and technologies for the implementation of large- scale robot tactile sensors,

    A. Schmitz, P. Maiolino, M. Maggiali, L. Natale, G. Cannata, and G. Metta, “Methods and technologies for the implementation of large- scale robot tactile sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 389–400, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Recognizing human touching behaviors using a haptic interface for a pet-robot,

    F. Naya, J. Yamato, and K. Shinozawa, “Recognizing human touching behaviors using a haptic interface for a pet-robot,” inIEEE SMC’99 Con- ference Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No. 99CH37028) , vol. 2, pp. 1030–1034, IEEE, 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    Touch modality interpretation for an eit-based sensitive skin,

    D. S. Tawil, D. Rye, and M. Velonaki, “Touch modality interpretation for an eit-based sensitive skin,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 3770–3776, IEEE, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Airskin modules: Unlimited possibilities for fenceless au- tomation

    AIRSKIN, “Airskin modules: Unlimited possibilities for fenceless au- tomation.” https://www.airskin.io/products/airskin-modules, 2024. Ac- cessed: 2024-04-30

    2024

  17. [25]

    Safeskin: Safe move never stop

    Dobot, “Safeskin: Safe move never stop.” https://www.dobot-robots. com/products/crs-series/dobot-safeskin.html, 2024. Accessed: 30 April 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Design of a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch,

    W. D. Stiehl, J. Lieberman, C. Breazeal, L. Basel, L. Lalla, and M. Wolf, “Design of a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch,” in ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005. , pp. 408–415, IEEE, 2005

    2005

  19. [27]

    The role of affective touch in human- robot interaction: Human intent and expectations in touching the haptic creature,

    S. Yohanan and K. E. MacLean, “The role of affective touch in human- robot interaction: Human intent and expectations in touching the haptic creature,” International Journal of Social Robotics , vol. 4, pp. 163–180, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Emotional robot for intelligent system-artificial emotional creature project,

    T. Shibata, K. Inoue, and R. Irie, “Emotional robot for intelligent system-artificial emotional creature project,” in Proceedings 5th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication. RO- MAN’96 TSUKUBA, pp. 466–471, IEEE, 1996

    1996

  21. [29]

    Low-latency classification of social haptic gestures using transformers,

    Q. Ren, Y . Hou, and T. Belpaeme, “Low-latency classification of social haptic gestures using transformers,” in Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , pp. 137–141, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    The communication of emotion via touch.,

    M. J. Hertenstein, R. Holmes, M. McCullough, and D. Keltner, “The communication of emotion via touch.,” Emotion, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 566, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    Uncovering human-to-human physical interactions that underlie emo- tional and affective touch communication,

    S. C. Hauser, S. McIntyre, A. Israr, H. Olausson, and G. J. Gerling, “Uncovering human-to-human physical interactions that underlie emo- tional and affective touch communication,” in 2019 IEEE world haptics conference (WHC), pp. 407–412, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Touch technology in affective human–, robot–, and virtual–human interactions: A survey,

    T. Olugbade, L. He, P. Maiolino, D. Heylen, and N. Bianchi-Berthouze, “Touch technology in affective human–, robot–, and virtual–human interactions: A survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 111, no. 10, pp. 1333–1354, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Interpretation of social touch on an artificial arm covered with an eit-based sensitive skin,

    D. Silvera-Tawil, D. Rye, and M. Velonaki, “Interpretation of social touch on an artificial arm covered with an eit-based sensitive skin,” International Journal of Social Robotics , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 489–505, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Tactile hand gesture recognition through haptic feedback for affective online communication,

    H. Y . Joung and E. Y .-L. Do, “Tactile hand gesture recognition through haptic feedback for affective online communication,” in Universal Ac- cess in Human-Computer Interaction. Users Diversity: 6th International Conference, UAHCI 2011, Held as Part of HCI International 2011,...

    2011

  27. [35]

    Modular piezoresistive smart textile for state estimation of cloths,

    R. Proesmans, A. Verleysen, R. Vleugels, P. Veske, V .-L. De Gusseme, and F. Wyffels, “Modular piezoresistive smart textile for state estimation of cloths,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 1, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    A cross-cultural study of a circumplex model of affect.,

    J. A. Russell et al. , “A cross-cultural study of a circumplex model of affect.,” Journal of personality and social psychology , vol. 57, no. 5, p. 848, 1989

    1989

  29. [37]

    The robust spectral audio features for speech emotion recognition,

    A. Shoiynbek, K. Kozhakhmet, N. Sultanova, and R. Zhumaliyeva, “The robust spectral audio features for speech emotion recognition,” Appl. Math, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 867–870, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Random forests,

    L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Machine learning , vol. 45, pp. 5–32, 2001

    2001

  31. [39]

    Sup- port vector machines,

    M. A. Hearst, S. T. Dumais, E. Osuna, J. Platt, and B. Scholkopf, “Sup- port vector machines,” IEEE Intelligent Systems and their applications , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 18–28, 1998

    1998

  32. [40]

    The alternating decision tree learning algo- rithm,

    Y . Freund and L. Mason, “The alternating decision tree learning algo- rithm,” in icml, vol. 99, pp. 124–133, 1999

    1999

  33. [41]

    Classification and regression by randomforest,

    A. Liaw, “Classification and regression by randomforest,” R news, 2002

    2002

  34. [42]

    A decision tree-based multimodal data mining framework for soccer goal detection,

    S.-C. Chen, M.-L. Shyu, M. Chen, and C. Zhang, “A decision tree-based multimodal data mining framework for soccer goal detection,” in 2004 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME)(IEEE Cat. No. 04TH8763) , vol. 1, pp. 265–268, IEEE, 2004

    2004

  35. [43]

    A comparison of decision tree classifiers with backpropagation neural networks for multimodal classification problems,

    D. E. Brown, V . Corruble, and C. L. Pittard, “A comparison of decision tree classifiers with backpropagation neural networks for multimodal classification problems,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 953– 961, 1993

    1993

  36. [44]

    Automatic recognition of touch gestures in the corpus of social touch,

    M. M. Jung, M. Poel, R. Poppe, and D. K. Heylen, “Automatic recognition of touch gestures in the corpus of social touch,” Journal on multimodal user interfaces , vol. 11, pp. 81–96, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Speech emotion recog- nition: Features and classification models,

    L. Chen, X. Mao, Y . Xue, and L. L. Cheng, “Speech emotion recog- nition: Features and classification models,” Digital signal processing , vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1154–1160, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Sound-based recog- nition of touch gestures and emotions for enhanced human-robot inter- action,

    Y . Hou, Q. Ren, W. Wang, and D. Botteldooren, “Sound-based recog- nition of touch gestures and emotions for enhanced human-robot inter- action,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00038 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Panns: Large-scale pretrained audio neural networks for audio pattern recognition,

    Q. Kong, Y . Cao, T. Iqbal, Y . Wang, W. Wang, and M. D. Plumbley, “Panns: Large-scale pretrained audio neural networks for audio pattern recognition,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 28, pp. 2880–2894, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Recognizing so- cial touch gestures using optimized class-weighted cnn-lstm networks,

    D. Darlan, O. S. Ajani, V . Parque, and R. Mallipeddi, “Recognizing so- cial touch gestures using optimized class-weighted cnn-lstm networks,” in 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) , pp. 2024–2029, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    The balanced accuracy and its posterior distribution,

    K. H. Brodersen, C. S. Ong, K. E. Stephan, and J. M. Buhmann, “The balanced accuracy and its posterior distribution,” in 2010 20th international conference on pattern recognition , pp. 3121–3124, IEEE, 2010

    2010

  43. [51]

    The effect of relationship status on communicating emotions through touch,

    E. H. Thompson and J. A. Hampton, “The effect of relationship status on communicating emotions through touch,” Cognition and Emotion , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 295–306, 2011

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.