CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Touching the social robot PARO reduces pain perception and salivary oxytocin levels

Geva, Nirit, Uzefovsky, Florina, Levy-Tzedek, Shelly·2020·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-66982-yPMC PMC7299999
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Human-human social touch improves mood and alleviates pain. No studies have so far tested the effect of human-robot emotional touch on experimentally induced pain ratings, on mood and on oxytocin levels in healthy young adults. Here, we assessed the effect of touching the robot PARO on pain perception, on mood and on salivary oxytocin levels, in 83 young adults. We measured their perceived pain, happiness state, and salivary oxytocin. For the 63 participants in the PARO group, pain was assessed in three conditions: Baseline, Touch (touching PARO) and No-Touch (PARO present). The control group (20 participants) underwent the same measurements without ever encountering PARO. There was a decrease in pain ratings and in oxytocin levels and an increase in happiness ratings compared to baseline only in the PARO group. The Touch condition yielded a larger decrease in pain ratings compared to No-Touch. These effects correlated with the participants’ positive perceptions of the interaction with PARO. Participants with higher perceived ability to communicate with PARO experienced a greater hypoalgesic effect when touching PARO. We show that human-robot social touch is effective in reducing pain ratings, improving mood and - surprisingly - reducing salivary oxytocin levels in adults.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-020-66982-y

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 An illustration of the VAS application used to rate pain levels. In order to rate the intensity of pain, the participants were asked to slide their finger from left to right on the screen of the device. Sliding the finger revealed a red area that expanded as the participant slid his or her finger further to the right. The leftmost edge of the screen was defined to have a value of zero (no pain), and the rightmost edge was defined to have a value of 10 (the most intense pain).
Figure 1 An illustration of the VAS application used to rate pain levels. In order to rate the intensity of pain, the participants were asked to slide their finger from left to right on the screen of the device. Sliding the finger revealed a red area that expanded as the participant slid his or her finger further to the right. The leftmost edge of the screen was defined to have a value of zero (no pain), and the rightmost edge was defined to have a value of 10 (the most intense pain).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Flow chart of the experimental design.
Figure 2 Flow chart of the experimental design.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 An illustration of the experimental setup. The participant (on the left) has the heat stimulator placed on her non-dominant arm, which is placed on the table. The experimenter (on the right) administers the accurate heat stimuli, and tracks them on the screen. (A) Baseline condition; PARO is not present. (B) No-Touch condition; PARO is present in the room, without physical contact with the participant. (C) Touch condition. PARO is placed on the table next to the participant, who touches it during the administration of the heat stimuli. In the control group, PARO was not present during the entire experimental session, as in (A).
Figure 3 An illustration of the experimental setup. The participant (on the left) has the heat stimulator placed on her non-dominant arm, which is placed on the table. The experimenter (on the right) administers the accurate heat stimuli, and tracks them on the screen. (A) Baseline condition; PARO is not present. (B) No-Touch condition; PARO is present in the room, without physical contact with the participant. (C) Touch condition. PARO is placed on the table next to the participant, who touches it during the administration of the heat stimuli. In the control group, PARO was not present during the entire experimental session, as in (A).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Participants’ perceptions of the interaction with PARO. (A) PARO’s perceived feelings, as evaluated by participants in the PARO group at the end of the experiment (at T4). (B) Participants’ impressions from their interaction with PARO (PARO group), which they reported at the end of the experiment (at T4). Values denote mean of visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–10) ± SEM.
Figure 4 Participants’ perceptions of the interaction with PARO. (A) PARO’s perceived feelings, as evaluated by participants in the PARO group at the end of the experiment (at T4). (B) Participants’ impressions from their interaction with PARO (PARO group), which they reported at the end of the experiment (at T4). Values denote mean of visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–10) ± SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 The change in perceived happiness at the four epochs of the study in the PARO and the control groups. A significant difference between groups was found at T3 (**p < 0.01) and T4 (*p < 0.05). At T2 happiness decreased significantly in the control group compared to T1 (p < 0.05). In the PARO group the change in happiness at T2 (compared to T1) was not significant, p = 0.06. At T3 Happiness increased significantly compared to T1 only in the PARO group (****p < 0.0001). Values denote mean of Δ visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–10) ± SEM. T1 – upon arrival; T2 – following the first pain-perception measurements; T3 – following 10 mins of either reading or interacting with PARO; T4 – completed while touching PARO (in the PARO group only), following the third, and last, pain-perception measurements.
Figure 5 The change in perceived happiness at the four epochs of the study in the PARO and the control groups. A significant difference between groups was found at T3 (**p < 0.01) and T4 (*p < 0.05). At T2 happiness decreased significantly in the control group compared to T1 (p < 0.05). In the PARO group the change in happiness at T2 (compared to T1) was not significant, p = 0.06. At T3 Happiness increased significantly compared to T1 only in the PARO group (****p < 0.0001). Values denote mean of Δ visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–10) ± SEM. T1 – upon arrival; T2 – following the first pain-perception measurements; T3 – following 10 mins of either reading or interacting with PARO; T4 – completed while touching PARO (in the PARO group only), following the third, and last, pain-perception measurements.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 The change in oxytocin levels at the 4 epochs of the study in the PARO and the control groups. Oxytocin levels decreased significantly from T1 to T3 (**p < 0.01) and further from T1 to T4 (***p < 0.001) only in the PARO group. The difference in oxytocin levels between the groups was significant at T4 (*p < 0.05). Values denote mean salivary oxytocin levels (pg/ml) ± SEM. T1 – upon arrival; T2 – following the first pain-perception measurements; T3 – following 10 mins of either reading or interacting with PARO; T4 – completed while touching PARO (in the PARO group only), following the third, and last, pain-perception measurements.
Figure 6 The change in oxytocin levels at the 4 epochs of the study in the PARO and the control groups. Oxytocin levels decreased significantly from T1 to T3 (**p < 0.01) and further from T1 to T4 (***p < 0.001) only in the PARO group. The difference in oxytocin levels between the groups was significant at T4 (*p < 0.05). Values denote mean salivary oxytocin levels (pg/ml) ± SEM. T1 – upon arrival; T2 – following the first pain-perception measurements; T3 – following 10 mins of either reading or interacting with PARO; T4 – completed while touching PARO (in the PARO group only), following the third, and last, pain-perception measurements.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 The change in pain ratings across the three pain measurements in the PARO and the control groups. (A) Mild pain: In the PARO group, pain ratings decreased in the Touch condition compared to Baseline (*p < 0.05). (B) Strong pain: In both the PARO and the control groups, pain ratings decreased in the No-Touch/S2 and Touch/S3 conditions compared to Baseline/S1. In the PARO group there was a greater decrease in the Touch compared to the No-Touch condition (**p < 0.01). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM.
Figure 7 The change in pain ratings across the three pain measurements in the PARO and the control groups. (A) Mild pain: In the PARO group, pain ratings decreased in the Touch condition compared to Baseline (*p < 0.05). (B) Strong pain: In both the PARO and the control groups, pain ratings decreased in the No-Touch/S2 and Touch/S3 conditions compared to Baseline/S1. In the PARO group there was a greater decrease in the Touch compared to the No-Touch condition (**p < 0.01). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Differences between low communicators (LC) and high communicators (HC). (A) perceived ability to communicate with PARO (****p < 0.0001); (B) oxytocin levels. Significant difference at T1 and T3 (*p < 0.05); (C) Strong-pain ratings. The decrease in pain ratings from Baseline to Touch condition was greater in HC compared to LC (*p < 0.05). Values denote mean visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–10) (A,C) and mean salivary oxytocin (pg/ml) (B) ±SEM. T1 – upon arrival; T2 – following the first pain-perception measurements; T3 – following 10 mins of either reading or interacting with PARO; T4 – completed while touching PARO (in the PARO group only), following the third, and last, pain-perception measurements.
Figure 8 Differences between low communicators (LC) and high communicators (HC). (A) perceived ability to communicate with PARO (****p < 0.0001); (B) oxytocin levels. Significant difference at T1 and T3 (*p < 0.05); (C) Strong-pain ratings. The decrease in pain ratings from Baseline to Touch condition was greater in HC compared to LC (*p < 0.05). Values denote mean visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–10) (A,C) and mean salivary oxytocin (pg/ml) (B) ±SEM. T1 – upon arrival; T2 – following the first pain-perception measurements; T3 – following 10 mins of either reading or interacting with PARO; T4 – completed while touching PARO (in the PARO group only), following the third, and last, pain-perception measurements.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Research works printed but not linked: 91

  1. Berscheid, E. The human’s greatest strength: Other humans., 37–47 (American Psychological Association, 2003). · DOI
  2. Frank, D. A., Klass, P. E., Earls, F. & Eisenberg, L. Infants and young children in orphanages: One view from pediatrics and child psychiatry. Pediatrics 97, 569–578 (1996).
  3. Rutter, M. & O’connor, T. G. Are there biological programming effects for psychological development? Findings from a study of Romanian adoptees. Developmental psychology 40, 81 (2004). · DOI
  4. Thompson, R. A. Social support and child protection: Lessons learned and learning. Child Abuse & Neglect 41, 19–29 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  5. DeWall, C. N. & Bushman, B. J. Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20, 256–260 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Galovski, T. & Lyons, J. A. Psychological sequelae of combat violence: A review of the impact of PTSD on the veteran’s family and possible interventions. Aggression and violent behavior 9, 477–501 (2004). · DOI
  7. Rintala, D. H., Hart, K. A. & Priebe, M. M. Predicting consistency of pain over a 10-year period in persons with spinal cord injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 41 (2004). · DOI
  8. Åslund, C., Larm, P., Starrin, B. & Nilsson, K. W. The buffering effect of tangible social support on financial stress: influence on psychological well-being and psychosomatic symptoms in a large sample of the adult general population. International journal for equity in health 13, 85 (2014). · DOI
  9. Divney, A. A. et al. Depression during pregnancy among young couples: the effect of personal and partner experiences of stressors and the buffering effects of social relationships. Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology 25, 201–207 (2012). · DOI
  10. Koopman, C., Hermanson, K., Diamond, S., Angell, K. & Spiegel, D. Social support, life stress, pain and emotional adjustment to advanced breast cancer. Psycho‐Oncology: Journal of the Psychological, Social and Behavioral Dimensions of Cancer 7, 101–111 (1998). · DOI
  11. Turner, J. B. & Turner, R. J. In Handbook of the sociology of mental health 341–356 (Springer, 2013). · DOI
  12. Gliga, T., Farroni, T. & Cascio, C. J. Social touch: A new vista for developmental cognitive neuroscience? Developmental cognitive neuroscience 35, 1 (2019). · DOI
  13. Prescott, T. J., Diamond, M. E. & Wing, A. M. Active touch sensing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366, 2989–2995 (2011). · DOI
  14. Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., Turner, R. B. & Doyle, W. J. Does hugging provide stress-buffering social support? A study of susceptibility to upper respiratory infection and illness. Psychological science 26, 135–147 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Bufalari, I. & Ionta, S. The social and personality neuroscience of empathy for pain and touch. Frontiers in human neuroscience 7, 393 (2013). · DOI
  16. Feldman, R., Gordon, I., Schneiderman, I., Weisman, O. & Zagoory-Sharon, O. Natural variations in maternal and paternal care are associated with systematic changes in oxytocin following parent–infant contact. Psychoneuroendocrinology 35, 1133–1141 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Moberg, K. U. & Moberg, K. The oxytocin factor: Tapping the hormone of calm, love, and healing. (Da Capo Press, 2003).
  18. Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Arn, I. & Magnusson, D. The psychobiology of emotion: the role of the oxytocinergic system. International journal of behavioral medicine 12, 59–65 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Agren, G., Lundeberg, T., Uvnäs-Moberg, K. & Sato, A. The oxytocin antagonist 1-deamino-2-D-Tyr-(Oet)-4-Thr-8-Orn-oxytocin reverses the increase in the withdrawal response latency to thermal, but not mechanical nociceptive stimuli following oxytocin administration or massage-like stroking in rats. Neuroscience letters 187, 49–52 (1995). · DOI
  20. Krahé, C., Drabek, M. M., Paloyelis, Y. & Fotopoulou, A. Affective touch and attachment style modulate pain: a laser-evoked potentials study. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371, 20160009 (2016). · DOI
  21. Master, S. L. et al. A picture’s worth: Partner photographs reduce experimentally induced pain. Psychological Science 20, 1316–1318 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Feingold Polak, R. et al. Differences between young and old users when interacting with a humanoid robot: a qualitative usability study. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 9, 183–192 (2018). · DOI
  23. Feingold Polak, R. & Levy-Tzedek, S. A Social Robot for Rehabilitation: Expert Clinicians and Post-Stroke Patients’ Evaluation Following a Long-Term Intervention. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 151–160). · DOI
  24. Eizicovits, D., Edan, Y., Tabak, I. & Levy-Tzedek, S. Robotic gaming prototype for upper limb exercise: Effects of age and embodiment on user preferences and movement. Restorative neurology and neuroscience 36, 261–274 (2018). · DOI
  25. Kashi, S. & Levy-Tzedek, S. Smooth leader or sharp follower? Playing the mirror game with a robot. Restorative neurology and neuroscience 36, 147–159 (2018). · DOI
  26. Li, J. & Chignell, M. Communication of emotion in social robots through simple head and arm movements. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 125–142 (2011). · DOI
  27. Hoffman, G. & Weinberg, G. Interactive improvisation with a robotic marimba player. Autonomous Robots 31, 133–153 (2011). · DOI
  28. Clabaugh, C., Tsiakas, K. & Mataric, M. In Proceedings of the Synergies between Learning and Interaction Workshop, IROS, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 24–28.
  29. Kellmeyer, P., Mueller, O., Feingold-Polak, R. & Levy-Tzedek, S. Social robots in rehabilitation: A question of trust. Sci. Robot. 3, eaat1587 (2018). · DOI
  30. Langer, A., Feingold-Polak, R., Mueller, O., Kellmeyer, P. & Levy-Tzedek, S. Trust in Socially Assistive Robots: Considerations for use in Rehabilitation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 104, 231–239 (2019). · DOI
  31. Shibata, T. Integration of therapeutic robot, paro, into welfare systems. Proceedings of the 28th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 3 (2010). · DOI
  32. Moyle, W. et al. Social robots helping people with dementia: Assessing efficacy of social robots in the nursing home environment. 6th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI). 608–613 (2013). · DOI
  33. Wada, K. & Shibata, T. Living with seal robots—its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE transactions on robotics 23, 972–980 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  34. Shibata, T. et al. Mental commit robot and its application to therapy of children. IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. 1053–1058 (2001). · DOI
  35. Eskander, R., Tewari, K., Osann, K. & Shibata, T. Pilot study of the PARO therapeutic robot demonstrates decreased pain, fatigue, and anxiety among patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Gynecologic Oncology 130, e144–e145 (2013). · DOI
  36. Beran, T. N., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Vanderkooi, O. G. & Kuhn, S. Humanoid robotics in health care: An exploration of children’s and parents’ emotional reactions. Journal of health psychology 20, 984–989 (2015). · DOI
  37. Trost, M. J., Ford, A. R., Kysh, L., Gold, J. I. & Matarić, M. Socially Assistive Robots for Helping Pediatric Distress and Pain. The Clinical Journal of Pain 35, 451–458 (2019). · DOI
  38. Koyama, Y., Koyama, T., Kroncke, A. P. & Coghill, R. C. Effects of stimulus duration on heat induced pain: the relationship between real-time and post-stimulus pain ratings. Pain 107, 256–266 (2004). · DOI
  39. Sue Carter, C. et al. Oxytocin: Behavioral Associations and Potential as a Salivary Biomarker. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1098, 312–322 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T. & Tanie, K. Effects of robot assisted activity for elderly people at day service center and analysis of its factors. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation 1301–1305 (2002). · DOI
  41. Calo, C. J., Hunt-Bull, N., Lewis, L. & Metzler, T. Ethical implications of using the paro robot, with a focus on dementia patient care. Workshops at the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2011).
  42. Veenhoven, R. Informed pursuit of happiness: What we should know, do know and can get to know. Journal of Happiness Studies 16, 1035–1071 (2015). · DOI
  43. Steptoe, A. Happiness and health. Annual review of public health 40, 339–359 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  44. Hooghe, M. & Vanhoutte, B. Subjective well-being and social capital in Belgian communities. The impact of community characteristics on subjective well-being indicators in Belgium. Social Indicators Research 100, 17–36 (2011). · DOI
  45. Hsu, H.-C. & Chang, W.-C. Social connections and happiness among the elder population of Taiwan. Aging & mental health 19, 1131–1137 (2015). · DOI
  46. Oerlemans, W. G., Bakker, A. B. & Veenhoven, R. Finding the key to happy aging: A day reconstruction study of happiness. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 66, 665–674 (2011). · DOI
  47. Requena, F. Welfare systems, support networks and subjective well-being among retired persons. Social Indicators Research 99, 511–529 (2010). · DOI
  48. Bao, K. J. & Schreer, G. Pets and happiness: Examining the association between pet ownership and wellbeing. Anthrozoös 29, 283–296 (2016). · DOI
  49. Walsh, F. Human‐animal bonds I: The relational significance of companion animals. Family process 48, 462–480 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  50. Moerman, C. J., van der Heide, L. & Heerink, M. Social robots to support children’s well-being under medical treatment: A systematic state-of-the-art review. Journal of Child Health Care 23, 596–612 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  51. Fiocco, A. & Hunse, A. The buffer effect of therapy dog exposure on stress reactivity in undergraduate students. International journal of environmental research and public health 14, 707 (2017). · DOI
  52. Kerns, K. A., Stuart‐Parrigon, K. L., Coifman, K. G., van Dulmen, M. H. & Koehn, A. Pet dogs: Does their presence influence preadolescents’ emotional responses to a social stressor? Social Development 27, 34–44 (2018). · DOI
  53. Crossman, M. K., Kazdin, A. E. & Kitt, E. R. The influence of a socially assistive robot on mood, anxiety, and arousal in children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 49, 48 (2018). · DOI
  54. Bernhard, A. et al. Adolescent oxytocin response to stress and its behavioral and endocrine correlates. Hormones and behavior 105, 157–165 (2018). · DOI
  55. Jurek, B. & Neumann, I. D. The oxytocin receptor: from intracellular signaling to behavior. Physiological reviews 98, 1805–1908 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  56. Pierrehumbert, B. et al. Oxytocin response to an experimental psychosocial challenge in adults exposed to traumatic experiences during childhood or adolescence. Neuroscience 166, 168–177 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  57. Taylor, S. E. et al. Relation of oxytocin to psychological stress responses and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis activity in older women. Psychosomatic medicine 68, 238–245 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  58. Brown, C. A., Cardoso, C. & Ellenbogen, M. A. A meta-analytic review of the correlation between peripheral oxytocin and cortisol concentrations. Frontiers in neuroendocrinology 43, 19–27 (2016). · DOI
  59. Feldman, R., Gordon, I. & Zagoory‐Sharon, O. Maternal and paternal plasma, salivary, and urinary oxytocin and parent–infant synchrony: considering stress and affiliation components of human bonding. Developmental science 14, 752–761 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  60. Schneiderman, I., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Zagoory-Sharon, O. & Feldman, R. Mutual influences between partners’ hormones shape conflict dialog and relationship duration at the initiation of romantic love. Social Neuroscience 9, 337–351 (2014). · DOI
  61. Crockford, C. et al. Urinary oxytocin and social bonding in related and unrelated wild chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280, 20122765 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  62. Campbell, P., Ophir, A. G. & Phelps, S. M. Central vasopressin and oxytocin receptor distributions in two species of singing mice. Journal of Comparative Neurology 516, 321–333 (2009). · DOI
  63. De Dreu, C. K. et al. The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science 328, 1408–1411 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  64. Dębiec, J. Peptides of love and fear: vasopressin and oxytocin modulate the integration of information in the amygdala. Bioessays 27, 869–873 (2005). · DOI
  65. Pedersen, C. A. Biological aspects of social bonding and the roots of human violence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1036, 106–127 (2004). · DOI
  66. Pfundmair, M., Reinelt, A., DeWall, C. N. & Feldmann, L. Oxytocin strengthens the link between provocation and aggression among low anxiety people. Psychoneuroendocrinology 93, 124–132 (2018). · DOI
  67. Romney, C., Hahn-Holbrook, J., Norman, G. J., Moore, A. & Holt-Lunstad, J. Where is the love? A double-blind, randomized study of the effects of intranasal oxytocin on stress regulation and aggression. International journal of psychophysiology 136, 15–21 (2019). · DOI
  68. Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Stoll, B., Lin, X. & Massey, N. Evaluations of an artificial intelligence instructor’s voice: Social Identity Theory in human-robot interactions. Computers in Human Behavior 90, 357–362 (2019). · DOI
  69. Quintana, D. S. & Guastella, A. An Allostatic Theory of Oxytocin Signaling. (2019). · DOI
  70. Okita, S. Y. Self–Other’s Perspective Taking: The Use of Therapeutic Robot Companions as Social Agents for Reducing Pain and Anxiety in Pediatric Patients. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16, 436–441 (2013). · DOI
  71. Stinson, J., Jibb, L., Nathan, P., Beran, T. & Hum, V. Using a humanoid robot to reduce procedural pain in children with cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. S54–S55 (Wiley-Blackwell, NJ USA).
  72. Nie, J., Park, M., Marin, A. L. & Sundar, S. S. Can you hold my hand? Physical warmth in human-robot interaction. 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 201–202 (2012). · DOI
  73. Willemse, C. J. & van Erp, J. B. Social Touch in Human–Robot Interaction: Robot-Initiated Touches can Induce Positive Responses without Extensive Prior Bonding. International journal of social robotics, 1–20 (2018). · DOI
  74. Robinson, H., MacDonald, B. & Broadbent, E. Physiological effects of a companion robot on blood pressure of older people in residential care facility: A pilot study. Australasian journal on ageing 34, 27–32 (2015). · DOI
  75. Geva, N., Pruessner, J. & Defrin, R. Acute psychosocial stress reduces pain modulation capabilities in healthy men. PAIN 155, 2418–2425 (2014). · DOI
  76. Geva, N., Pruessner, J. & Defrin, R. Triathletes lose their advantageous pain modulation under acute psychosocial stress. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 49, 333–341 (2017). · DOI
  77. Dunford, E. & Thompson, M. Relaxation and mindfulness in pain: A review. Reviews in pain 4, 18–22 (2010). · DOI
  78. Kwekkeboom, K. L. & Gretarsdottir, E. Systematic review of relaxation interventions for pain. Journal of nursing scholarship 38, 269–277 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  79. Smith, C. A. et al. Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3 (2018). · DOI
  80. Chayadi, E. & McConnell, B. L. Gaining insights on the influence of attention, anxiety, and anticipation on pain perception. Journal of Pain Research 12, 851 (2019). · DOI
  81. DeMore, M. & Cohen, L. L. Distraction for pediatric immunization pain: A critical review. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings 12, 281–291 (2005). · DOI
  82. Johnson, M. H., Breakwell, G., Douglas, W. & Humphries, S. The effects of imagery and sensory detection distractors on different measures of pain: how does distraction work? British Journal of Clinical Psychology 37, 141–154 (1998). · DOI
  83. Mancini, F., Beaumont, A.-L., Hu, L., Haggard, P. & Iannetti, G. D. D. Touch inhibits subcortical and cortical nociceptive responses. Pain 156, 1936 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  84. Mancini, F., Nash, T., Iannetti, G. D. & Haggard, P. Pain relief by touch: a quantitative approach. PAIN® 155, 635–642 (2014). · DOI
  85. Bourne, S., Machado, A. G. & Nagel, S. J. Basic anatomy and physiology of pain pathways. Neurosurgery Clinics 25, 629–638 (2014).
  86. Melzack, R. From the gate to the neuromatrix. Pain 82, S121–S126 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  87. Barnett, A. G., Van Der Pols, J. C. & Dobson, A. J. Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it. International journal of epidemiology 34, 215–220 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  88. De Vignemont, F. & Singer, T. The empathic brain: how, when and why? Trends in cognitive sciences 10, 435–441 (2006). · DOI
  89. Akert, R. M. & Panter, A. T. Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication. Personality and Individual Differences 9, 965–972 (1988). · DOI
  90. Rahbar, F. et al. In International Conference on Social Robotics. 543–553 (Springer).
  91. Erk, S. M., Toet, A. & Van Erp, J. B. Effects of mediated social touch on affective experiences and trust. PeerJ 3, e1297 (2015). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Geva, N., Uzefovsky, F., & Levy-Tzedek, S.
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-06-17
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/s41598-020-66982-y
PMC
PMC7299999
Cited by
111
References
25
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Helmsley Charitable Trust, Marcus Endowment Fund, the Borten Family Foundation grants, the Israel Pain Association, the Rosetrees Trust, Consolidated Anti-Aging Foundation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review