CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interaction Matters: The Effect of Touching the Social Robot PARO on Pain and Stress is Stronger When Turned ON vs. OFF

Geva, Nirit, Hermoni, Netta, Levy-Tzedek, Shelly·2022·Frontiers in Robotics and AI
DOI 10.3389/frobt.2022.926185PMC PMC9305613
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social touch between humans, as well as between humans and animals, was previously found to reduce pain and stress. We previously reported that touching a social robot can also induce a reduction in pain ratings. However, it is unclear if the effect that touching a robot has on pain perception is due to its appearance and its pleasant touch, or due to its ability to socially interact with humans. In the current experiment, we aimed to assess the contribution of the interactive quality to pain perception. We assessed the effect of touching the social robot PARO on mild and strong pain ratings and on stress perception, on a total of 60 healthy young participants. The robot either interacted with participants (ON group, n = 30) or was turned off (OFF group, n = 30). Touching the robot induced a decrease in mild pain ratings (compared to baseline) only in the ON group while strong pain ratings decreased similarly in both the ON and the OFF groups. The decrease in mild pain ratings in the ON group was significantly greater in participants with a higher positive perception of the interaction with PARO. We conclude that part of the effect that touching the robot has on pain stems from its interactive features.

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 · 10.3389/frobt.2022.926185

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 An illustration of the experimental setup. The participant (on the left) has the thermal 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. The participant uses the custom-made VAS application 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 tablet. Sliding the finger revealed a red area that expanded as the participant slid 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). (B) Touch condition; PARO is placed on the table next to the participant, who touches it during the administration of the heat stimuli.
FIGURE 1 An illustration of the experimental setup. The participant (on the left) has the thermal 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. The participant uses the custom-made VAS application 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 tablet. Sliding the finger revealed a red area that expanded as the participant slid 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). (B) Touch condition; PARO is placed on the table next to the participant, who touches it during the administration of the heat stimuli.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 The change in perceived stress between BASELINE (T1) and TOUCH (T2) in the ON and OFF groups. Only in the ON group perceived stress decreased from T1 to T2 (*p < 0.05). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. Results from the ON group are marked in blue, and results from the OFF group are marked in red. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO.
FIGURE 3 The change in perceived stress between BASELINE (T1) and TOUCH (T2) in the ON and OFF groups. Only in the ON group perceived stress decreased from T1 to T2 (*p < 0.05). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. Results from the ON group are marked in blue, and results from the OFF group are marked in red. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 4 Changes in pain perception between BASELINE (T1) and TOUCH (T2). (A) Mild pain: The change in pain ratings (marked with a Δ) from T1 to T2 was significantly different between the ON (blue) and OFF (red) groups (**p < 0.01). Only in the ON group, pain ratings decreased significantly at T2 compared to T1 (***p < 0.001). (B) Strong pain: In both the ON and the OFF groups, pain ratings decreased at T2 compared to T1 (***p < 0.0001). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO.
FIGURE 4 Changes in pain perception between BASELINE (T1) and TOUCH (T2). (A) Mild pain: The change in pain ratings (marked with a Δ) from T1 to T2 was significantly different between the ON (blue) and OFF (red) groups (**p < 0.01). Only in the ON group, pain ratings decreased significantly at T2 compared to T1 (***p < 0.001). (B) Strong pain: In both the ON and the OFF groups, pain ratings decreased at T2 compared to T1 (***p < 0.0001). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 5 Differences in strong-pain ratings between participants who gave high vs. low ratings to the pleasantness of touching PARO. (A) Within the ON group there was a significant decrease in pain ratings from T1 to T2 both in HPT (***p < 0.001, purple) and LPT (**p < 0.01, green). (B) Within the OFF group there was a significant decrease in pain ratings from T1 to T2 only in HPT (***p < 0.001). The change in pain ratings from T1 to T2 (marked with a Δ) was significantly different between the HPT and LPT sub-groups (**p < 0.01). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO. HPT—participants who gave above-median ratings to the pleasantness of touching PARO. LPT—participants who gave below-median ratings to the pleasantness of touching PARO.
FIGURE 5 Differences in strong-pain ratings between participants who gave high vs. low ratings to the pleasantness of touching PARO. (A) Within the ON group there was a significant decrease in pain ratings from T1 to T2 both in HPT (***p < 0.001, purple) and LPT (**p < 0.01, green). (B) Within the OFF group there was a significant decrease in pain ratings from T1 to T2 only in HPT (***p < 0.001). The change in pain ratings from T1 to T2 (marked with a Δ) was significantly different between the HPT and LPT sub-groups (**p < 0.01). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO. HPT—participants who gave above-median ratings to the pleasantness of touching PARO. LPT—participants who gave below-median ratings to the pleasantness of touching PARO.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 6 Differences in mild-pain ratings between high communicators (HC) and low communicators (LC). Pain ratings decreased at T2 compared to T1 in both the HC (*p < 0.05, gray) and the LC groups (*p < 0.05, blue). However, at T2 pain ratings by HC were significantly lower than ratings by LC (**p < 0.01). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO. HC—participants who gave above-median ratings to their ability to communicate with PARO. LC—participants who gave below-median ratings to their ability to communicate with PARO.
FIGURE 6 Differences in mild-pain ratings between high communicators (HC) and low communicators (LC). Pain ratings decreased at T2 compared to T1 in both the HC (*p < 0.05, gray) and the LC groups (*p < 0.05, blue). However, at T2 pain ratings by HC were significantly lower than ratings by LC (**p < 0.01). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO. HC—participants who gave above-median ratings to their ability to communicate with PARO. LC—participants who gave below-median ratings to their ability to communicate with PARO.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 7 Differences in pain ratings between HMA and LMA. Only in the HMA sub-group (brown) there was a significant decrease in pain ratings at T2 compared to T1 (***p < 0.001). The change in pain ratings from T1 to T2 (marked with a Δ) was significantly different between the HMA and the LMA (magenta) sub-groups (**p < 0.01). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO. HMA—participants who gave above-median ratings to their willingness to meet PARO again. LMA—participants who gave below-median ratings to their willingness to meet PARO again.
FIGURE 7 Differences in pain ratings between HMA and LMA. Only in the HMA sub-group (brown) there was a significant decrease in pain ratings at T2 compared to T1 (***p < 0.001). The change in pain ratings from T1 to T2 (marked with a Δ) was significantly different between the HMA and the LMA (magenta) sub-groups (**p < 0.01). Values denote mean visual-analogue scale (VAS) ratings (0–10) ± SEM. T1—before encountering PARO, T2—while touching PARO. HMA—participants who gave above-median ratings to their willingness to meet PARO again. LMA—participants who gave below-median ratings to their willingness to meet PARO again.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

Research works printed but not linked: 107

  1. Attal, 2021, Potential for Increased Prevalence of Neuropathic Pain after the COVID-19 Pandemic, Pain Rep., 6, e884, 10.1097/pr9.0000000000000884 · DOI
  2. Bannon, 2021, The Role of Social Isolation in Physical and Emotional Outcomes Among Patients with Chronic Pain, General Hosp. psychiatry, 69, 50, 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2021.01.009 · DOI
  3. Bao, 2016, Pets and Happiness: Examining the Association between Pet Ownership and Wellbeing, Anthrozoös, 29, 283, 10.1080/08927936.2016.1152721 · DOI
  4. Bardoni, 2013, Pre- and Postsynaptic Inhibitory Control in the Spinal Cord Dorsal Horn, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1279, 90, 10.1111/nyas.12056 · DOI
  5. Barré, 2017, The Visual Analogue Scale: An Easy and Reliable Way of Assessing Perceived Stress, Qual. Prim. Health Care, 1, 1
  6. Beekman, 2016, Need to Belong, Not Rejection Sensitivity, Moderates Cortisol Response, Self-Reported Stress, and Negative Affect Following Social Exclusion, J. Soc. Psychol., 156, 131, 10.1080/00224545.2015.1071767 · DOI
  7. Beran, 2013, Reducing Children's Pain and Distress towards Flu Vaccinations: a Novel and Effective Application of Humanoid Robotics, Vaccine, 31, 2772, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.056 · DOI
  8. Beran, 2015, Humanoid Robotics in Health Care: An Exploration of Children's and Parents' Emotional Reactions, J. Health Psychol., 20, 984, 10.1177/1359105313504794 · DOI
  9. Birnie, 2017, Mechanisms of Distraction in Acute Pain Perception and Modulation, Pain, 158, 1012, 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000913 · DOI
  10. Björnsdotter, 2011, Vicarious Responses to Social Touch in Posterior Insular Cortex Are Tuned to Pleasant Caressing Speeds, J. Neurosci., 31, 9554, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0397-11.2011 · DOI
  11. Braz, 2014, Transmitting Pain and Itch Messages: a Contemporary View of the Spinal Cord Circuits that Generate Gate Control, Neuron, 82, 522, 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.01.018 · DOI
  12. Burleson, 2013, 10 Social Touch and Resilience," The Resilience Handbook: Approaches to Stress and Trauma, 131
  13. Carrillo-de-la-Peña, 2021, Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Chronic Pain in Spain: a Scoping Review, Pain Rep., 6, e899, 10.1097/pr9.0000000000000899 · DOI
  14. Case, 2021, The Role of Expectations and Endogenous Opioids in Mindfulness-Based Relief of Experimentally Induced Acute Pain, Psychosom. Med., 83, 549, 10.1097/psy.0000000000000908 · DOI
  15. Céspedes Gómez, 2021, A Socially Assistive Robot for Long-Term Cardiac Rehabilitation in the Real World, Front. Neurorobotics, 15, 21, 10.3389/fnbot.2021.633248 · DOI
  16. Charry-Sánchez, 2018, Animal-assisted Therapy in Adults: A Systematic Review, Complementary Ther. Clin. Pract., 32, 169, 10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.06.011 · DOI
  17. Che, 2021, Social Touch Modulates Pain-Evoked Increases in Facial Temperature, Curr. Psychol., 1, 10.1007/s12144-020-01212-2 · DOI
  18. Clauw, 2020, Considering the Potential for an Increase in Chronic Pain after the COVID-19 Pandemic, Pain, 161, 1694, 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001950 · DOI
  19. Cohavi, 2022, Young and Old Users Prefer Immersive Virtual Reality over a Social Robot for Short-Term Cognitive Training, Int. J. Human-Computer Stud., 161, 102775, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102775 · DOI
  20. Crossman, 2018, The Influence of a Socially Assistive Robot on Mood, Anxiety, and Arousal in Children, Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract., 49, 48, 10.1037/pro0000177 · DOI
  21. Davis, 1992, The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Anxiety, Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 15, 353, 10.1146/annurev.ne.15.030192.002033 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Demir, 2012, Social Skills, Friendship and Happiness: A Cross-Cultural Investigation, J. Soc. Psychol., 152, 379, 10.1080/00224545.2011.591451 · DOI
  23. Ditzen, 2019, Intimacy as Related to Cortisol Reactivity and Recovery in Couples Undergoing Psychosocial Stress, Psychosom. Med., 81, 16, 10.1097/psy.0000000000000633 · DOI
  24. Eckstein, 2020, Calming Effects of Touch in Human, Animal, and Robotic Interaction—Scientific State-Of-The-Art and Technical Advances, Front. psychiatry, 11, 555058, 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.555058 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Edwards, 2020, Using Robot Animal Companions in the Academic Library to Mitigate Student Stress, 10.1108/LHT-07-2020-0148 · DOI
  26. Eizicovits, 2018, Robotic Gaming Prototype for Upper Limb Exercise: Effects of Age and Embodiment on User Preferences and Movement, Rnn, 36, 261, 10.3233/rnn-170802 · DOI
  27. Ellingsen, 2016, The Neurobiology Shaping Affective Touch: Expectation, Motivation, and Meaning in the Multisensory Context, Front. Psychol., 6, 1986, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01986 · DOI
  28. Eskander, 2013, Pilot Study of the PARO Therapeutic Robot Demonstrates Decreased Pain, Fatigue, and Anxiety Among Patients with Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma, Gynecol. Oncol., 130, e144, 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.04.410 · DOI
  29. Fairhurst, 2014, Physiological and Behavioral Responses Reveal 9-Month-Old Infants' Sensitivity to Pleasant Touch, Psychol. Sci., 25, 1124, 10.1177/0956797614527114 · DOI
  30. Feingold-Polak, 2021, A Robot Goes to Rehab: a Novel Gamified System for Long-Term Stroke Rehabilitation Using a Socially Assistive Robot—Methodology and Usability Testing, J. NeuroEngineering Rehabilitation, 18, 1, 10.1186/s12984-021-00915-2 · DOI
  31. Feldman, 2010, Natural Variations in Maternal and Paternal Care Are Associated with Systematic Changes in Oxytocin Following Parent-Infant Contact, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35, 1133, 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.01.013 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Feldman, 2011, Maternal and Paternal Plasma, Salivary, and Urinary Oxytocin and Parent-Infant Synchrony: Considering Stress and Affiliation Components of Human Bonding, Dev. Sci., 14, 752, 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01021.x · DOI · Paper page
  33. Fidanza, 2021, A Better Touch: C-Tactile Fibers Related Activity Is Associated to Pain Reduction during Temporal Summation of Second Pain, J. Pain, 22, 567, 10.1016/j.jpain.2021.01.001 · DOI
  34. Gates, 2020, Digital Technology Distraction for Acute Pain in Children: a Meta-Analysis, Pediatrics, 145, e20191139, 10.1542/peds.2019-1139 · DOI
  35. Gee, 2017, Human-Animal Interaction and Older Adults: An Overview, Front. Psychol., 8, 1416, 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01416 · DOI
  36. Geva, 2018, Opposite Effects of Stress on Pain Modulation Depend on the Magnitude of Individual Stress Response, J. Pain, 19, 360, 10.1016/j.jpain.2017.11.011 · DOI
  37. Geva, 2014, Acute Psychosocial Stress Reduces Pain Modulation Capabilities in Healthy Men, Pain®, 155, 2418, 10.1016/j.pain.2014.09.023 · DOI
  38. Geva, 2020, Touching the Social Robot PARO Reduces Pain Perception and Salivary Oxytocin Levels, Sci. Rep., 10, 9814, 10.1038/s41598-020-66982-y · DOI · Paper page
  39. Giansanti, 2021, The Social Robot in Rehabilitation and Assistance: What Is the Future?, Healthcare, 9, 244, 10.3390/healthcare9030244 · DOI
  40. Goldstein, 2016, Empathy Predicts an Experimental Pain Reduction during Touch, J. Pain, 17, 1049, 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.06.007 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Guan, 2012, Spinal Cord Stimulation: Neurophysiological and Neurochemical Mechanisms of Action, Curr. Pain Headache Rep., 16, 217, 10.1007/s11916-012-0260-4 · DOI
  42. Gupta, 2018, Innovative Technology Using Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Pain: Does it Reduce Pain via Distraction, or Is There More to it?, Pain Med., 19, 151, 10.1093/pm/pnx109 · DOI
  43. Heidarigorji, 2014, The Efficacy of Relaxation Training on Stress, Anxiety, and Pain Perception in Hemodialysis Patients, Indian J. Nephrol., 24, 356, 10.4103/0971-4065.132998 · DOI
  44. Helpman, 2017, Endocrine and Emotional Response to Exclusion Among Women and Men; Cortisol, Salivary Alpha Amylase, and Mood, Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 30, 253, 10.1080/10615806.2016.1269323 · DOI
  45. Henschel, 2021, What Makes a Robot Social? a Review of Social Robots from Science Fiction to a Home or Hospital Near You, Curr. Robot. Rep., 2, 9, 10.1007/s43154-020-00035-0 · DOI
  46. Hoffmann, 2021, The Persuasive Power of Robot Touch. Behavioral and Evaluative Consequences of Non-functional Touch from a Robot, Plos one, 16, e0249554, 10.1371/journal.pone.0249554 · DOI
  47. Jablonski, 2021, Social and Affective Touch in Primates and its Role in the Evolution of Social Cohesion, Neuroscience, 464, 117, 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.11.024 · DOI
  48. Johnson, 1998, The Effects of Imagery and Sensory Detection Distractors on Different Measures of Pain: How Does Distraction Work?, Br. J. Clin. Psychol., 37, 141, 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1998.tb01290.x · DOI
  49. Kashi, 2018, Smooth Leader or Sharp Follower? Playing the Mirror Game with a Robot, Rnn, 36, 147, 10.3233/rnn-170756 · DOI
  50. Kataoka, 2020, A Central Master Driver of Psychosocial Stress Responses in the Rat, Science, 367, 1105, 10.1126/science.aaz4639 · DOI
  51. Kubota, 2021, Methods for Robot Behavior Adaptation for Cognitive Neurorehabilitation, Annu. Rev. Control, Robotics, Aut. Syst., 5, 109, 10.1146/annurev-control-042920-093225 · DOI
  52. Kucyi, 2013, Mind Wandering Away from Pain Dynamically Engages Antinociceptive and Default Mode Brain Networks, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 110, 18692, 10.1073/pnas.1312902110 · DOI
  53. Kuhn, 1990, Endocrine Responses to Mother-Infant Separation in Developing Rats, Dev. Psychobiol., 23, 395, 10.1002/dev.420230503 · DOI
  54. Liljencrantz, 2016, Pain and Touch: Roles for C-Tactile Afferents in Pain Inhibition and Tactile Allodynia, 409, 10.1007/978-1-4939-6418-5_24 · DOI
  55. Liljencrantz, 2017, Slow Brushing Reduces Heat Pain in Humans, Eur. J. Pain, 21, 1173, 10.1002/ejp.1018 · DOI
  56. Löken, 2010, The Skin as a Social Organ, Exp. Brain Res., 204, 305, 10.1007/s00221-009-2007-y · DOI
  57. López-Solà, 2019, Brain Mechanisms of Social Touch-Induced Analgesia in Females, Pain, 160, 2072, 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001599 · DOI
  58. Loreto-Quijada, 2014, Differential Effects of Two Virtual Reality Interventions: Distraction versus Pain Control, Cyberpsychology, Behav. Soc. Netw., 17, 353, 10.1089/cyber.2014.0057 · DOI
  59. Lu, 2021, Effectiveness of Companion Robot Care for Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Innov. Aging, 5, igab013, 10.1093/geroni/igab013 · DOI
  60. Mancini, 19362015, Touch Inhibits Subcortical and Cortical Nociceptive Responses, Pain, 156, 1936, 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000253 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Manduca, 2014, Social Play Behavior, Ultrasonic Vocalizations and Their Modulation by Morphine and Amphetamine in Wistar and Sprague-Dawley Rats, Psychopharmacology, 231, 1661, 10.1007/s00213-013-3337-9 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Martela, 2019, Clarifying the Concept of Well-Being: Psychological Need Satisfaction as the Common Core Connecting Eudaimonic and Subjective Well-Being, Rev. General Psychol., 23, 458, 10.1177/1089268019880886 · DOI
  63. Martos-Montes, 2019, Psychophysiological Effects of Human-Dog Interaction in University Students Exposed to a Stress-Induced Situation Using the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST), Hum. Anim. Interact. Bull., 8, 36
  64. Massaccesi, 2022, Opioid-Blunted Cortisol Response to Stress is Associated with Increased Negative Mood and Wanting of Social Reward, 1
  65. Master, 2009, A Picture's Worth, Psychol. Sci., 20, 1316, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02444.x · DOI · Paper page
  66. McGlone, 2014, Discriminative and Affective Touch: Sensing and Feeling, Neuron, 82, 737, 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.001 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Meijer, 2021, Neural Basis of Affective Touch and Pain: A Novel Model Suggests Possible Targets for Pain Amelioration, J. Neuropsychology, 16, 38, 10.1111/jnp.12250 · DOI
  68. Meller, 1980, Behavioural and Endocrine Effects of Naltrexone in Male Talapoin Monkeys, Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav., 13, 663, 10.1016/0091-3057(80)90010-6 · DOI
  69. Mendell, 2014, Constructing and Deconstructing the Gate Theory of Pain, Pain®, 155, 210, 10.1016/j.pain.2013.12.010 · DOI
  70. Mertens, 2020, The Result of Acute Induced Psychosocial Stress on Pain Sensitivity and Modulation in Healthy People, Pain physician, 23, E703
  71. Morrison, 2016, Keep Calm and Cuddle on: Social Touch as a Stress Buffer, Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiology, 2, 344, 10.1007/s40750-016-0052-x · DOI · Paper page
  72. Nelson, 2017, Relaxation Training and Postoperative Music Therapy for Adolescents Undergoing Spinal Fusion Surgery, Pain Manag. Nurs., 18, 16, 10.1016/j.pmn.2016.10.005 · DOI
  73. Nummenmaa, 2015, Adult Attachment Style Is Associated with Cerebral μ-opioid Receptor Availability in Humans, Hum. Brain Mapp., 36, 3621, 10.1002/hbm.22866 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Nummenmaa, 2016, Social Touch Modulates Endogenous μ-opioid System Activity in Humans, NeuroImage, 138, 242, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.063 · DOI
  75. Okita, 2013, Self-Other's Perspective Taking: The Use of Therapeutic Robot Companions as Social Agents for Reducing Pain and Anxiety in Pediatric Patients, Cyberpsychology, Behav. Soc. Netw., 16, 436, 10.1089/cyber.2012.0513 · DOI
  76. Osawa, 2021, Soft Robotic Shell with Active Thermal Display, Sci. Rep., 11, 1, 10.1038/s41598-021-99117-y · DOI
  77. Price, 1983, The Validation of Visual Analogue Scales as Ratio Scale Measures for Chronic and Experimental Pain, Pain, 17, 45, 10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Pu, 2019, The Effectiveness of Social Robots for Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies, Gerontologist, 59, e37, 10.1093/geront/gny046 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Rokach, 2018, People with Chronic Pain and Caregivers: Experiencing Loneliness and Coping with it, Curr. Psychol., 37, 886, 10.1007/s12144-017-9571-2 · DOI
  80. Roques, 2012, Inhibiting the Breakdown of Endogenous Opioids and Cannabinoids to Alleviate Pain, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 11, 292, 10.1038/nrd3673 · DOI
  81. Rosenberg, 2020, Depression and Loneliness during COVID-19 Restrictions in the United States, and Their Associations with Frequency of Social and Sexual, Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol., 56, 1221, 10.1007/s00127-020-02002-8 · DOI
  82. Salter, 1990, Differential Responses of Nociceptive vs. Non-nociceptive Spinal Dorsal Horn Neurones to Cutaneously Applied Vibration in the Cat, Pain, 40, 311, 10.1016/0304-3959(90)91128-6 · DOI
  83. Salter, 1990, Physiological Characteristics of Responses of Wide Dynamic Range Spinal Neurones to Cutaneously Applied Vibration in the Cat, Brain Res., 507, 69, 10.1016/0006-8993(90)90524-f · DOI
  84. Sawicki, 2021, Neuroimmune Interactions in Pain and Stress: an Interdisciplinary Approach, Neuroscientist, 27, 113, 10.1177/1073858420914747 · DOI
  85. Schirmer, 2022, Social Touch - a Tool rather Than a Signal, Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci., 44, 101100, 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.101100 · DOI
  86. Shiloh, 2003, Reduction of State-Anxiety by Petting Animals in a Controlled Laboratory Experiment, Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 16, 387, 10.1080/1061580031000091582 · DOI
  87. Smakman, 2021, Mitigating Children's Pain and Anxiety during Blood Draw Using Social Robots, Electronics, 10, 1211, 10.3390/electronics10101211 · DOI
  88. Snyder, 2019, Stimulation-Produced Analgesia (TENS and Acupuncture), 153, 10.1007/978-3-030-18005-8_24 · DOI
  89. Soares, 2021, Social Relationships and Survival in the Older Adult Cohort, Rev. Latino-Americana Enferm., 29, e3395, 10.1590/1518-8345.3844.3395 · DOI
  90. Stachowski, 2021, Spinal Inhibitory Interneurons: Gatekeepers of Sensorimotor Pathways, Ijms, 22, 2667, 10.3390/ijms22052667 · DOI
  91. Stein, 2007, Opioids: from Physical Pain to the Pain of Social Isolation, CNS Spectr., 12, 669, 10.1017/s1092852900021490 · DOI
  92. Su, 2018, A Touch-Scaffolded Model of Human Prosociality, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 92, 453, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.07.008 · DOI
  93. Sufka, 2002, Gate Control Theory Reconsidered, Brain Mind, 3, 277, 10.1023/a:1019996809849 · DOI
  94. Tanaka, 2012, Effect of a Human-type Communication Robot on Cognitive Function in Elderly Women Living Alone, Med. Sci. Monit., 18, CR550, 10.12659/msm.883350 · DOI · Paper page
  95. Tang, 2020, Social Touch Promotes Interfemale Communication via Activation of Parvocellular Oxytocin Neurons, Nat. Neurosci., 23, 1125, 10.1038/s41593-020-0674-y · DOI · Paper page
  96. Triscoli, 2017, Heart Rate Variability Is Enhanced by Long-Lasting Pleasant Touch at CT-optimized Velocity, Biol. Psychol., 128, 71, 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.07.007 · DOI
  97. Trost, 2019, Socially Assistive Robots for Helping Pediatric Distress and Pain, Clin. J. pain, 35, 451, 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000688 · DOI
  98. Trost, 2020, Socially-Assistive Robots Using Empathy to Reduce Pain and Distress during Peripheral IV Placement in Children, Pain Res. Manag., 2020, 7935215, 10.1155/2020/7935215 · DOI
  99. van Oers, 1998, Maternal Deprivation Effect on the Infant's Neural Stress Markers Is Reversed by Tactile Stimulation and Feeding but Not by Suppressing Corticosterone, J. Neurosci., 18, 10171, 10.1523/jneurosci.18-23-10171.1998 · DOI
  100. Vrontou, 2013, Genetic Identification of C Fibres that Detect Massage-like Stroking of Hairy Skin In Vivo, Nature, 493, 669, 10.1038/nature11810 · DOI
  101. Wada, 2007, Living with Seal Robots-Its Sociopsychological and Physiological Influences on the Elderly at a Care House, IEEE Trans. Robot., 23, 972, 10.1109/tro.2007.906261 · DOI · Paper page
  102. Walsh, 2009, Human-Animal Bonds I: The Relational Significance of Companion Animals, Fam. process, 48, 462, 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x · DOI · Paper page
  103. Weinrich, 1990, The Effect of Massage on Pain in Cancer Patients, Appl. Nurs. Res., 3, 140, 10.1016/s0897-1897(05)80135-1 · DOI
  104. West, 2015, Circuitry and Plasticity of the Dorsal Horn - Toward a Better Understanding of Neuropathic Pain, Neuroscience, 300, 254, 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.05.020 · DOI
  105. Williamson, 2018, Effects of Social Exclusion on Cardiovascular and Affective Reactivity to a Socially Evaluative Stressor, Int.J. Behav. Med., 25, 410, 10.1007/s12529-018-9720-5 · DOI
  106. Young, 2020, Pets, Touch, and COVID-19: Health Benefits from Non-human Touch through Times of Stress, J. Behav. Econ. Policy, 4, 25
  107. Zhang, 2020, Different Neuronal Populations Mediate Inflammatory Pain Analgesia by Exogenous and Endogenous Opioids, Elife, 9, e55289, 10.7554/eLife.55289 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 19

Metadata

Authors
Geva, N., Hermoni, N., & Levy-Tzedek, S.
Venue
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-07-08
Volume
9
ISSN
2296-9144
DOI
10.3389/frobt.2022.926185
PMC
PMC9305613
Cited by
19
References
20
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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