Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39329588›Full record

ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Human-Robot Intimacy: Acceptance of Robots as Intimate Companions.

Sophia Bertoni, Christian Klaes, Artur Pilacinski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sophia BertoniCINEICC, University of Coimbra, 3000-802 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0009-0004-8036-1136
Christian KlaesMedical Faculty, Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.
Artur PilacinskiMedical Faculty, Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3816-4372

Funding

Bial Foundation 260/22
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Depictions of robots as romantic partners for humans are frequent in popular culture. As robots become part of human society, they will gradually assume the role of partners for humans whenever necessary, as assistants, collaborators, or companions. Companion robots are supposed to provide social contact to those who would not have it otherwise. These companion robots are usually not designed to fulfill one of the most important human needs: the one for romantic and intimate contact. Human-robot intimacy remains a vastly unexplored territory. In this article, we review the state-of-the-art research in intimate robotics. We discuss major issues limiting the acceptance of robots as intimate partners, the public perception of robots in intimate roles, and the possible influence of cross-cultural differences in these domains. We also discuss the possible negative effects human-robot intimacy may have on human-human contact. Most importantly, we propose a new term "intimate companion robots" to reduce the negative connotations of the other terms that have been used so far and improve the social perception of research in this domain. With this article, we provide an outlook on prospects for the development of intimate companion robots, considering the specific context of their use.

Indexed as

human–robot interactionhuman–robot intimacyintimate companion robotssex robots

Identifiers

PMID39329588
PMCPMC11430707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.