Evaluating Elements of Communicative Stuffed-toy DeviceDescribes Scripts on SNS

Haruka Mase1, Tomoko Yonezawa2, and Kazuki Joe11Dept. of Advanced Information and Computer Sciences, Nara Women’s University, Nara, Japan

2Faculty of Informatics, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan

Abstract— This paper investigates the elements of our pro-posed stuffed-toy device that is expected to work as an outlettarget receptacle of a user’s mental anguish. When the userphysically interacts with the stuffed toy, a script of the stuffedtoy is post on an SNS, such as Twitter. We aim for anindirect and unforced communication between the damageduser and other participants in SNS through the scripts of thestuffed toy device that indicates sympathetic understandingfor user’s mood recognition.

Keywords: Stuffed-toy, Twitter, SNS, Rapport, Communicationsupport

1. IntroductionThere are many people under various strains in a stressful

society today. In March 2011, we have received strongmental stress due to the Great East Japan Earthquake. It isconsidered that the method of solutions for those problemsare counseling and healing programs. However, there arestill additional problems and psychological burdens to havesuch programs; not only do they need time and money butit is also difficult to remove hesitation to have the programsespecially for the first time. Moreover, it takes mental energyto find a suitable counselor for each person. To confirmsuch tendencies, we conducted a preliminary survey of theimpression for counseling with questionnaire sheets. Asresults, it was confirmed that there were a lot of negativeattitudes such as “I feel reluctance to get counseling," “I donot want to talk with strangers,” and so on with only fewresponses with positive impressions.

In this paper, we propose a communicative stuffed-toydevice that works as a emotional outlet for effusion ofthe user’s psychological burdens. Our proposed device isexpected to reduce the hesitation to understand the user’sown mental situation by nonverbal effusion to artificialpresence rather than by verbal explanation in a counselingsession that requires self-discourse to another person. Theproposed system has two types of feedbacks when the usertouches on the stuffed-toy device, 1) the stuffed toy makesnonverbal motions by its head or arm and 2) it makes itsown comment on an SNS such as Twitter1. The formerinteraction is expressed for the live-communicative healing

1Twitter : https://twitter.com/

of the user, and the latter interaction is a method for anindirect communication between the user and the familyand friends of the user. The pull-type indirect representationwithout intrusion is possible to promote future proactivecommunications.

Additionally, in this paper, we conveyed the system evalu-ations focusing on the elements: surface materials, existenceof the face, physical motions, and text messages. From theresults of the experiment, we discuss whether the stuffed toyhas the reduction effect of the user’s stress and the effect asthe receptacle of the user’s emotional effusion.

2. Related WorksHere, we discuss the related works on anthropomorphic

agent-based counseling systems and communication sys-tems.

ELIZA(DOCTOR)[1] is a text-based interactive counsel-ing system with a computer in 1960s. ELIZA is a di-alogue system that simulates a conversation between thepsychoanalyst and a patient without a tangible body orvirtual presence with any physical embodiment. When weconsider verbal communication with an artificial presence,the conversation tends to become unnatural because of themismatched keywords used to generate verbal replies fromthe system. ELIZA replies to the user’s texts by repeatinglike a parrot without any dialogic analyses. Even such simplereplies could make effective results.

To avoid the complex processes and the problems in theverbal communication and also to enrich the non-verbaland physical interactions, we adopted a stuffed animal asa medium covering the interface device. Stuffed toys donot make physical motions by themselves so that theyhave flexible characteristics as shown in their usages bothas partners and as avatars of the user in playing house.Moreover, there are psychological therapies using stuffedtoys as same as shown in animal therapy[2]. Consequently,we involved anthropomorphic physical interactions withnonverbal input from the user to take advantage of intuitivehealing methods. The stuffed toy describes information ofthe user’s interaction onto SNS such as Twitter to indirectlyrepresent the user’s close members of the family or friendshow the user interacted with the stuffed toy.

On the other hand, the continuous interaction needs toestablish a trustful relation, “rapport,” between the user

310 Int'l Conf. Par. and Dist. Proc. Tech. and Appl. | PDPTA'15 |

Table 1: Experiences with stuffed toysMale (/123) Female (/80)

Have spoken to 22.0% 63.8%Have hugged 30.9% 77.5%

and the stuffed toy. In establishing rapport, the cooperativeattitude, such as appropriate gaze as attentiveness and thepositivite attitude are especially important[3]. In this paper,we adopt the nod gesture of the stuffed toy as a cooperativeattitude in order to engage the more familiar rapport betweenthe user and the stuffed toy.

Nakatani et al. introduced a stuffed-toy robot system thatshows breathing expression like a living presence in orderto produce a sense of affective feeling [4]. This study hasfocused on a presence like living beings. Contrary to theirapproach, we focus on tactile communication with rapportto provide the user a sense of peace of mind.

Nakagawa et al. developed Keepon [5] that is a com-munication robot which aims for drawing communicativebehavior of children. Keepon aims at emotional expressionsby nodding and tilting the head. The idea of the headgestures for the communication is similar to our device. Weregarded the nod of the stuffed toy as a basic attitude ofengaging rapport for promoting continuous interaction, andfocused on the nonverbal contents of the communication forfurther indirect communication with other people.

Osumi et al. has proposed an automatic generation ofa robot’s motions from weblogs [6]. The purpose of thisstudy has similar aspect to our challenge in supportingthe indirect communication among people. However, fromthe viewpoint of the receptacle of emotional effusion, weconsider the role of the stuffed toy as a communicativemedium, and the robot is not expected to directly talk verbalcontent to the user nor to explicitly show the presence of theaudience in the SNS media. From the viewpoint of both 1)the nonverbal interaction for therapeutic effusion and 2) theindirect communication between the user and other people,we designed two types of interactions corresponding to theuser’s input.

3. System Implementation3.1 Preliminary survey with questionnaires3.1.1 Purpose of the Preliminary Survey

We investigated various daily-uses of stuffed toys, suchas the target of the user’s affective emotions, feelings, andcontexts of the interactions, to consider the possibility ofaffective communication using a stuffed toy. 203 people (123males and 80 females) aged from 19 to 24 years old werethe target of our survey.

3.1.2 Items of QuestionnairesWe prepared a questionnaire survey focusing on tactile

interaction and one-way utterance to the stuffed toy. The

Table 2: Situations when themale respondents have talkedto stuffed toys(Male)

positive situationshappy 2enjoyable 1

negatives ituationsdepressed 2lonely 5sad 3anxiety 1

other situationsspare time 6emotional swing 2use as cusion 1need to move 1sleeping 1playing 4

Table 3: Situations when themale respondents have em-braced stuffed toys(Male)

positive situationshappy 1

negative situationsdepressed 4tired 7lonely 4sad 1anxiety 5irritated 1

other situationssleeping 7without meaning 3need warming 1need healing 3

Table 4: Situations when themale respondents have talkedto stuffed toys(Female)

positive situationshappy 7enjoyable 7

negative situationstired 1lonely 9sad 10painful 1

other situationssleeping 3playing 9greeting 1dropped 4without meaning 5

Table 5: Situations when themale respondents have em-braced stuffed toys(Female)

positive situationshappy 8negative situationstired 1lonely 17sad 7anxiety 3irritated 1

other situationswant to hug 6sleeping 9feel cute 8playing 1need healing 5

question items are as follows.• Have you talked to stuffed toys?• When do you talk to stuffed toys?• Have you held on stuffed toys?• What do you think the reason when you held the

stuffed-toy / did not held it?

3.1.3 The Results of the Preliminary SurveyThe results of the questionnaires survey are summarized

in Table 1. As can be seen, the ratios of the people whohave experiences of hugging or talking to the stuffed toysare different between the results for males and females. It isconjectured that the differences are caused by a stereotypeimage of girls in using stuffed toys and dolls in playinghouse, especially in the investigated targets in Japan.

Table 2 and Table 3 show the contexts of the maleinterviewees interacted with the stuffed toys. The verbaltalks were to stuffed toys were made in various contexts,in contrast, the embraces or hugs were made while the maleinteviewees were in negative contexts.

Table 4 and Table 5 show the contexts of the femaleinterviewees interacted with the stuffed toys. The results

Int'l Conf. Par. and Dist. Proc. Tech. and Appl. | PDPTA'15 | 311

Fig. 1: Block diagram of the proposed system

Fig. 2: Hardware structure of the system

were similar to the male interviewees with few tendenciesof negative motivations.

In total, we could find the strong tendency of interactionunder negative contexts. It is considered that people interactwith, especially embrace, the stuffed toys when they havestresses from negative feelings or thoughts. From theseresults, the possibility of the stuffed toys is expected tobecome a role as an acceptant of the user’s strong emotions.

3.2 System3.2.1 System concept

The basic concept of our stuffed-toy system is built togive the device two aspects of communication roles; thefirst role is the acceptant of the user’s strong emotions, andthe second role is the medium as an indirect communicatorwith other people. An embodied stuffed toy enables physicaland nonverbal interactions from the user without caringthe other person. The recorded logs of the interaction canalso indirectly inform simple situation of the user in SNScommunity so that her/his family and friends can roughlyunderstand the user’s state.

3.2.2 System summaryIn this research, we adopted a bear-type stuffed toy

as a physical embodiment of the device. Figure 1 shows

Fig. 3: Example use (1):(make-believe play by pat-ting its head).

Fig. 4: Example use (2):make-believe play by bend-ing its arm

Fig. 5: Example use (3): hugging it as a partner

the process flow of the proposed system. The stuffed toyincludes three sensors and one servomotor in its body underthe fur skin. The user’s inputs such as stroking, embracing,or bending the arm of the stuffed toy are automaticallyrecognized and the stuffed toy makes nods or other motionscorresponding to the user’s input. At the same time, amessage related to the user’s contexts and interactions isautomatically sent to SNS server as a comment on Twitter.

3.2.3 Hardware StructureFigure 2 shows the hardware structure of the system. We

assumed three types of user’s inputs:stroking or patting onthe head of the stuffed toy (Figure 3), bending the arm of thestuffed toy to make some gestures (Figure 4), and embracingthe stuffed toy (Figure 5). Figures from 6 show sensor valuesin the stuffed toy. In order to establish rapport between theuser and the stuffed-toy device, we designed the motion ofthe device’s head to move back and forth (nods) by a servomotor in the neck of the stuffed toy. This motion makes theuser feel as though the stuffed toy nodded corresponding tohis/her inputs.

3.2.4 Software StructuresThe physical inputs from the user to the stuffed toy

are detected from On/Off signals of the sensors by eachthreshold value although there should be various patternsand levels of delicate inputs. In order to produce reasonableand understandable reaction of the stuffed toy, we adopteda simple judgement of the inputs using threshold values. Inthe case when at least one of the sensors detect a value over

312 Int'l Conf. Par. and Dist. Proc. Tech. and Appl. | PDPTA'15 |

Fig. 6: Example values of the sensors

Table 6: The scripts of the stuffed toy in Twittercontext

actionshug pat on the head bend the arm

morning Good morning,thanks for hug.Should be surely agood day today!

Good morning, I’llcheer for you to-day.

Thanks for playingwith me! Speak tome anytime.

noon Thanks for hug.What’s up? Pleasetalk anything tome.

Thank you for pat-ting me. It is nec-essary to have abreak sometimes.

Thanks for playingwith me! How areyou today?

evening Thanks for hug.I’m going to bealong with you to-morrow too.

Thanks for yourpatting. What’s uptoday?

Thanks for play-ing a lot with me!Let’s play againtomorrow.

stronger inputthan usual

What’s up? Ihear anything, so,please try to talkanything.

What’s up? I’ll lis-ten to you any-time, so please talkmore and more.

What’s up? I canplay with you any-time, so don’t hes-itate!

the threshold, the AVR (Arduino2) sends the values of thesensors to PC (Processing3) by serial communication, andProcessing selects an appropriate script for the commentin SNS based on the assumed context of the interactionfrom the scripts database (Figure 7). Based on the resultsof the preliminary surveys, we focused on the stuffed-toy’sscripts to express concern of it for the user. The scriptdatabase have twelve patterns of scripts for the stuffed toy onTwitter corresponding to the types of interaction, strength,and timing as shown in Table 6.

3.2.5 User Feedbacks in Demonstration ExhibitionSome participants in Maker Faire Tokyo 20134 experi-

enced our proposed stuffed-toy device with the same func-tions, while the contents of the comments were differentfrom Table 6. Some participants told us familiar feedbackssuch as “The proposed stuffed-toy device is more popularthan a normal stuffed animal.” On the other hand, there

2Arduino : http://www.arduino.cc/3Processing : https://www.processing.org/4Maker Faire Tokyo 2013: http://makezine.jp/event/mft2013/

Fig. 7: Automatic Tweets of the stuffed toy

were several people who indicated negative opinions suchas “It is scary.” or “I have some hesitation of use becausethe interactions are uploaded automatically.”

4. Evaluations of Stuffed-toy DeviceFocusing on the direct interaction between the stuffed toy

and the user, we evaluated the possibility of the proposedsystem for the user’s emotional effusion.

4.1 Setting for experiment descriptionPurpose: We evaluated the following four verifications:

• Whether the stuffed-toy device can decrease the user’sstress.

• Whether the user regards the stuffed-toy device as acommunication partner.

• Whether the stuffed-toy has a role as an accepter offeelings.

• Whether it is possible to form the rapport.Participants: Twenty-five people participated in this exper-iment. These participants are undergraduate or graduatestudents aged from 19 to 24 years old with sixteen maleparticipants and nine female participants.Factors in the experiment: We set the following factorsbased on the hypothesis above.

A The surface material of the deviceB The arrangement of facial parts of the deviceC The gestural motion of the deviceD Text message

Level：A Cloth / styrene boardB Face-like arrangement of the eyes and the mouth in a

surface as a face. / Abnormal arrangement of the facialparts. (See Figure 9)

C With nods / without nodD Existence / non-existence of a text message

Conditions: A branching table of the conditions is shown inTable 7. Two standards were set up to 4 factors of everythingand the experiment was prepared by total of 16 conditions.Hypotheses:

A When the surface material of the stuffed-toy device iscloth, the user feel relaxed and relieved with familiaremotion toward the stuffed toy.

Int'l Conf. Par. and Dist. Proc. Tech. and Appl. | PDPTA'15 | 313

Fig. 8: Screen of the character message(two types)

Fig. 9: The device in the experiment

B A robot with a face enables to make eye contact and toexpress emotions on its face. From the expressivenessof the face, the user become possible to can trust therobot (the engagement of rapport).

C When the stuffed-toy device nods, the user regards therobot as a trustworthy and communicative partner. Inaddition, the user feels easier to effuse her/his ownemotion rather than the device without nod.

D When the user receives a text message from the robot,the user interprets it as that the stuffed-toy device istrying to communicate with the user.

Procedures: This experiment was prepared as a within-subjects design. Before the experiment, each participant hada POMS-SF test in order to measure the state of her/hisstress. The participants were instructed to pay attention notonly to the device but also the monitor, which shows a textmessage on the screen in the condition with the message.

In advance of the experiment, an experimenter directedthe participant to pat on the robot’s head and to embrace itduring the experiment session. The participant can touch thedevice as she/he likes after the directed inputs. The partici-pant’s hand motions were recorded with a web-camera. Aftereach session with a touch and embrace of the device theparticipant evaluated the evaluation items. The experimentsessions were randomized for counter-balance.The robot for the experiment use: Robots used by this ex-periment is indicated on Figure 9.Evaluation Items 1: subjective evaluations:

1) You felt at ease.2) The robot seemed to try to tell you something.3) You became an unpleasant feeling.

Table 7: Conditional branch table　 　 message ○ message ×

Cloth normal face nod ○ Condition1 Condition2　 nod × Condition3 Condition4abnormal face nod ○ Condition5 Condition6　 nod × Condition7 Condition8

Styrene board normal face nod ○ Condition9 Condition10　 nod × Condition11 Condition12abnormal face nod ○ Condition13 Condition14　 nod × Condition15 Condition16

Table 8: The POMS-SF scores of the participantsThe degree of stress Value The number of people

Low 23～48 17Middle 49～73 5High 74～98 3

4) You were relieved.5) The robot reacted to your action.6) The robot seemed to try to communicate with you.7) You could communicate with the robot easily.8) The robot seemed to mind nothing.9) You felt familiar feeling to the robot.

10) You felt that the robot was reliable.11) The communication with the robot was natural.12) The robot seemed to have an intention.13) You felt like talking to the robot.14) You touched the robot strongly.Evaluation Items 2: POMS-SF test POMS-SF test is a

reduction edition of POMS test (the degree of stressesmeasurement check). As the value of the result becomesbig, the degree of stress becomes high. POMS-SF test wasperformed to all participants first by this experiment. As aresult, the lowest numerical value is 23 and the maximumvalue is 98 of participants. Table 8 shows the one whichclassified the numerical value into three classes accordingto the degree of the stress and totaled one in this area.

4.2 ResultAnalyses of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measure-

ment among the conditions(*p<.05) are shown in Table 9.The results of the means opinion scores (MOS) are shownin Figure 10 and 11.

The evaluation items 1, 4, 9 and 13 showed significancesby all factors. Moreover, from the result of the evaluationitem 3, the significant difference was found by the factor ofmaterial, face, and text message. Accordingly, It is suggestedthat the hypothesis A was confirmed.

From the results for the evaluation item 2, the significantdifference was found by the factors of nod and text messagein particular with the significant interaction between them.It is suggested that the robot’s intention of the commu-nication could be expressed by at least one modality ofthe expression. Moreover, the significant difference in theevaluation item 5 was confirmed by the factors of face, nod,

314 Int'l Conf. Par. and Dist. Proc. Tech. and Appl. | PDPTA'15 |

and text message with an interaction between the nod factorand the message factor. The item 8 showed significancesby all factors with an interaction between the nod factorand the character factor. Additionally, the evaluation item12 showed significant difference by the factors of face, nod,and message with the interaction between the nod factor andthe message factor. From these results, the hypothesis B wasconfirmed.

Moreover, the results for the evaluation items 6, 7, 10 and13 showed significant differences by the all factors so thatthe hypotheses C and D were confirmed.

The evaluation item 14 did not show any significance.

5. DiscussionNow, we discuss the effectiveness of the stuffed-toy de-

vice and two types of communication possibilities. Fromthe results of four factorial analyses of variance, it wasrevealed that the appearance of the stuffed toy device and theinteractions with the user are important from the evaluationsfor “whether the user felt at ease,” “whether relationship ofmutual trust can be built between the user and the stuffedtoy device(formation of rapport),” and “whether the stuffedtoy device can be a communication partner" as the ANOVAresults.

From the results for the evaluation item 1, 3, 4, 9 and13, the users could become relieved and familiar to thestuffed toy by the soft material of the robot’s coveringcloth. Additionally, it was revealed that the users tend tobecome easy to make emotional effusion by the soft material.However, the interactions between the face and nod factorsand between the face and message factors were confirmedby all items mentioned above; therefore, it is suggested thatsome motion of the stuffed toy are also important as well ashaving a normal face.

The result for the evaluation items 6, 7, 10 and 13showed that the facial appearance of the stuffed toy enabledeye contact with the user and the nodding of the stuffedtoy represented the reliable and communicable partner.Additionally, from the result of the evaluation item 6, itis conjectured that a rapport was established between theuser and the robot by adopting the material and engaginggestures of the stuffed toy. It is also considered that therepresentation of the text message enriched the user’s feelingof the robot’s effort to communicate with the user. Moreover,many interactions were confirmed by the factors about theappearance. For these reasons, the appearances of the stuffedtoy could elevate the possibility of the user’s relieved andreliable communication. The importance of the nod andmessage factors was confirmed by both the interactionsbetween the nod factor and the other factor in the evaluationitem 8 and the interactions between the message factor andthe other factor in the evaluation item 12.

From the result of the evaluation item 3, it is suggestedthat the user’s unpleasant feeling would be caused by un-

comfortable touch or the inappropriate appearance of theanthropomorphic presence. The appearances of the stuffedtoy without any message are considered to draw the negativefeeling of the user as though the reaction of the toy werenot really showing earnest attitude.

From the results for the evaluation item 2, 5, 8 and 12,it is suggested that the text message with concrete contentsmake the user interpret as though the artificial presence hadits own intentions. Moreover, the results of evaluation item 8and 12 showed the importance of the material of the devicefor expressing its intentions. Thus, the animal-like or living-being-like appearances could affect the user’s interpretationof the anthropomorphic presence.

Figure 10 and 11 showed that the condition 16 was thehighest score in the evaluation item 3. Additionally, Theconditions without nods nor messages were highly scoredin the evaluation item 8. In contrast, the condition 1 was thehighest score in all evaluation items except for the items 3,8, and 14.

From these results, we could confirm the effectiveness ofour proposed device in interpretation of anthropomorphiccommunication. We should develop further evaluations ofnot only the direct communication but also the indirectcommunication with the other people through the SNS textmessage of the stuffed toy.

6. ConclusionIn this paper, we proposed a communicative stuffed-toy

system as an acceptant of the emotional effusion of a user’spsychological burdens. The proposed system consists ofa stuffed-toy device, tactile sensors, and servo motors asactuators with network connection through a PC. The devicecaptures, the physical and nonverbal inputs from the user notonly for communicative interaction between the stuffed toyand the user but also for the indirect communication throughposted messages between the user and the other people suchas her/his remote family.

The experiment on the effectiveness of the proposedstuffed-toy device revealed that the user’s stress is able to bereduced by using the stuffed-toy. Moreover, the relationshipbetween the user and the stuffed-toy device has been grownby its nods and indicated messages in SNS such as Twitter.Finally the our aiming rapport, that is the mutual trust, wasestablished at least in the feeling of the user. Thereby, wefound out that the user regards the stuffed-toy toy device asa communication partner in emotional interaction that needsmutual trust.

In future work, we should consider to perform the user’sgestural recognition which shows emotional feelings. Thesystem also needs to understand the environment surround-ing user by using such as sound recognition. Moreover,further evaluations for stress reduction should be conductedin future.

Int'l Conf. Par. and Dist. Proc. Tech. and Appl. | PDPTA'15 | 315

Table 9: The results of four-factor ANOVAs　 material(A) face(B) nod(C) message(D) 　　 F(24) p F(24) p F(24) p F(24) p interactionQ1 85.888 ＜ 0.01* 35.266 ＜ 0.01* 53.275 ＜ 0.01* 51.826 ＜ 0.01* BC*Q2 1.854 0.19 6.060 0.02* 265.962 ＜ 0.01* 89.363 ＜ 0.01* CD*Q3 35.552 ＜ 0.01* 16.358 0.01* 2.047 0.17 9.152 0.01* BD*Q4 71.14 ＜ 0.01* 24.24 0.01* 33.62 ＜ 0.01* 38.44 ＜ 0.01* BC*Q5 2.489 0.13 8.197 0.01* 318.500 ＜ 0.01* 151.034 ＜ 0.01* CD*Q6 12.04 0.01* 20.54 0.01* 220.94 ＜ 0.01* 98.08 ＜ 0.01* CD*, ABC*, ACD*Q7 37.883 ＜ 0.01* 30.438 ＜ 0.01* 147.975 ＜ 0.01* 75.013 ＜ 0.01* AC*, BC*Q8 6.083 0.02* 19.989 0.01* 79.976 ＜ 0.01* 18.416 0.01* AC*, BC*, CD*Q9 62.49 ＜ 0.01* 27.48 ＜ 0.01* 71.44 ＜ 0.01* 66.46 ＜ 0.01* BC*, BD*Q10 27.12 ＜ 0.01* 49.31 ＜ 0.01* 74.33 ＜ 0.01* 24.00 0.01* BD*Q11 14.852 0.01* 29.538 ＜ 0.01* 108.859 ＜ 0.01* 49.596 ＜ 0.01* 　Q12 2.94 0.1+ 19.89 0.01* 186.90 ＜ 0.01* 46.26 ＜ 0.01* AD*, BD*, CD*, ABC*Q13 16.97 0.01* 32.47 ＜ 0.01* 40.84 ＜ 0.01* 16.07 0.01* BD*Q14 0.518 0.48 0.170 0.68 0.376 0.55 3.827 0.06+ 　

+ p＜.10, * p＜.05

Fig. 10: ANOVA result graph - 1

Fig. 11: ANOVA result graph - 2

AcknowledgmentThis research was supported in part by JSPS KAK-

ENHI 15H01698, JSPS KAKENHI 25700021, and JSPSKAKENHI 24300047. The authors would like to thank theparticipants in the experiment.

References[1] J.Weizenbaum: “ELIZA-A Computer Program For the Study of Natural

Language Communication Between Man and Machine,” Communica-tions of the ACM, Vol.9, No.1, pp.36–45, 1966.

[2] Tomoko Yonezawa, Hirotake Yamazoe, Akira Utsumi, Shinji Abe:“Attractive, Informative, and Communicative Robot System on GuidePlate as an Attendant with Awareness of User’s Gaze,” Paladyn. Journalof Behavioral Robotics, Vol.4, Issue 2, pp.113–122, 2013.

[3] Tickle-Degnen, L., Rosenthal, R.: “The Nature of Rapport and Nonver-bal Correlates,” Psychological Inquiry, Vol.1, No.4, pp.285–293, 1990.

[4] Yukari Nakatani, Tomoko Yonezawa: Breatter: “A Simulation of Liv-ing Presence with Breath that Corresponds to Utterances,” HRI2014,pp.254–255, 2014.

[5] Hideki Kozima, Marek Piotr Michalowski, Cocoro Nakagawa:“Keepon: A playful robot for research, therapy, and entertainment,”International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol.1, No.1, pp.3–18, 2009.

[6] Toshihiro Osumi, Kenta Fujimoto, Yuki Kuwayama, Masato Noda,Hirotaka Osawa, Michita Imai, Kazuhiko Shinozawa: “BlogRobot:Mobile Terminal for Blog Browse Using Physical Representation,”International Conference on Social Robotics, pp.96–101, 2009.

[7] Tomoko Yonezawa, Brian Clarkson, Michiaki Yasumura, Kenji Mase,“Context-aware sensor-doll as a music expression device,” CHI’01Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 307–

308, 2001.

316 Int'l Conf. Par. and Dist. Proc. Tech. and Appl. | PDPTA'15 |