Discerning Affect From Touch and Gaze During Interaction With a Robot Pet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Practical affect recognition needs to be efficient and unobtrusive in interactive contexts. One approach to a robust realtime system is to sense and automatically integrate multiple nonverbal sources. We investigated how users’touch, and secondarilygaze, perform as affect-encoding modalities during physical interaction with a robot pet, in comparison to more-studied biometric channels. To elicit authentically experienced emotions, participants recounted two intense memories of opposing polarity inStressed-RelaxedorDepressed-Excitedconditions. We collected data (N=30) from a touch sensor embedded under robot fur (force magnitude and location), a robot-adjacent gaze tracker (location), and biometric sensors (skin conductance, blood volume pulse, respiration rate). Cross-validation of Random Forest classifiers achieved best-case accuracy for combined touch-with-gaze approaching that of biometric results: where training and test sets include adjacent temporal windows, subject-dependent prediction was 94% accurate. In contrast, subject-independent Leave-One-participant-Out predictions resulted in 30% accuracy (chance 25%). Performance was best where participant information was available in both training and test sets. Addressing computational robustness for dynamic, adaptive realtime interactions, we analyzed subsets of our multimodal feature set, varying sample rates and window sizes. We summarize design directions based on these parameters for this touch-based, affective, and hard, realtime robot interaction application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".