Many studies have shown that it is possible to recognise an artefact type and subsequently form an impression by observing only its shape. However, it is unclear whether the likeability of an artefact is due to its creatureliness, association with the object it imitates, or the likeability of the imitated object. Additional research is required to clarify whether the likeability of an object originates from its association with motion, perception of animacy, or the motion factor itself. Therefore, this study video-recorded the movement of plant-like artefacts to examine and determine the factors that significantly influence their likeability. This study considered the degree of animacy of the artefacts, their degree of association with the imitated plants, and the degree of likeability of the imitated plants as factors. Fifty-five participants with different sexual orientations completed an online questionnaire regarding their impressions of the artefacts in the recordings they watched. The responses were subjected to multiple regression analysis. The results showed that the degree of animacy and association with the imitated plants had the greatest influence on the likeability of the artefacts.
BorensteinJ.ArkinR. (2019). Robots, ethics, and intimacy: The need for scientific research. In BerkichD.D’AlfonsoM. (Eds.), On the cognitive, ethical, and scientific dimensions of artificial intelligence (pp. 299–309). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01800-9_16
2.
CaiF. (2022). Effects of the motion of artifacts in residential spaces on people’s feeling. The Transactions of Human Interface Society, 24, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.11184/his.24.2_95
3.
CaiF. (2024). Effects of impression ratings by the difference of animacy perception of artefacts in motion. Bulletin of Japanese Society for the Science of Design, 70, 49-3(58), 3. https://doi.org10.11247/jssdj.70.3_49
4.
Castro-GonzálezÁ.AdmoniH.ScassellatiB. (2016). Effects of form and motion on judgments of social robots’ animacy, likability, trustworthiness and unpleasantness. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 90, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.02.004
5.
Chandler-MatherN. C.WelshT.SparksS.KritikosA. (2020). Biological motion and animacy belief induce similar effects on involuntary shifts of attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(3), 1099–1111. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01843-z
6.
GrossmanE. D.BlakeR. R. (2001). Brain activity evoked by inverted and imagined biological motion. Vision Research, 41(10–11), 1475–1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00317-5
7.
HeiderF.SimmelM. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416950
KamoharaD.GenjoK. (2019). Green mental healthcare effects in office spaces focusing on color and fragrance of plants. Reports of Graduate School of Engineering, Nagasaki University, 49(93), 78–84.
10.
KawakamiN. (2015) (Seminar). Emotion and the unconscious: Mere exposure effect and the unconscious: Where does liking come from? Emotion Studies, 1(1), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.20797/ems.1.1_81
11.
KourokiM.MatsudaK.KusumiT. (2018). The effect of object motion factor on perception of emotion to the object. Transactions of Japan Society of Kansei Engineering, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5057/jjske.TJSKE-D-17-00050
12.
LevillainF.ZibettiE. (2017). Behavioral objects: The rise of the evocative machines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 6(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.6.1.Levillain
13.
MatsudaK.KusumiT.KobayashiT.IchikawaM.KourokiM.KurokawaM. (2013). The effects of speed change and randomness in object movements on active eye-tracking and preference formation. Japanese Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.5265/jcogpsy.10.133
14.
MiyoshiK. (2018). Where Kinesthetic Empathy Meets Kinetic Design. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Movement and Computing (MOCO ’18), Article No. 32, pp. 1–4. New York, NY, United States. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3212721.3212847
MoriM.MacDormanK. F.KagekiN. (2012). The uncanny valley [From the field]. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811
17.
NagamachiM. (2002). Kansei engineering as a powerful consumer-oriented technology for product development. Applied Ergonomics, 33(3), 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00019-4
18.
NakamuraH.SumiN. (2002). Motion information that contributes to the perception of animate and non-animate objects in single object motion (Vol. 26, pp. 95–100). The Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers. https://doi.org/10.11485/itetr.26.9.0_95
OuJ.MaZ.PetersJ.DaiS.VlavianosN.IshiiH. (2018). KinetiX—Designing auxetic-inspired deformable material structures. Computers and Graphics, 75, 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2018.06.003
21.
ParkesA.PoupyrevI.IshiiH. (2008). Designing kinetic interactions for organic user interfaces. Communications of the ACM, 51(6), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349026.1349039
22.
PopperF. (1968). Origins and development of kinetic art. New York Graphic Society.
23.
RyanC. O.BrowningW. D.ClancyJ. O.AndrewsS. L.KallianpurkarN. B. (2014). Biophilic design patterns: Emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. International Journal of Architectural Research: Archnet-IJAR, 8(2), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i2.436
24.
SakamotoM.NakajimaT.AlexandrovaT. (2015). Enhancing values through virtuality for intelligent artifacts that influence human attitude and behavior. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74(24), 11537–11568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-014-2250-5
ShibataT. (2017). Development and spread of therapeutic medical robot, PARO: Innovation of non-pharmacological therapy for dementia and mental health. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 60, 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1241/johokanri.60.217
27.
ShibataT.WadaK. (2011). Introduction of field test on robot therapy by seal robot, Paro. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, 29(3), 246–249. https://doi.org/10.7210/jrsj.29.246
28.
SouriauP. (1983). The aesthetics of movement (SouriauM., Trans.). The University of Massachusetts Press (original work published 1889).
29.
SuzukiM.YamamotoS.FujiharaM.OyabuT. (2020). Physiological and psychological effect of seeing plants everyday at workplace. Landscape Planning and Horticulture, 21, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.60257/keikanengei.21.0_1
30.
TomikawaM.OdaM. (2009). Emotion estimation of a small target circle from many simple movements, The Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers, 33(17), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11485/itetr.33.17.0_1
31.
TremouletP. D.FeldmanJ. (2000). Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception, 29(8), 943–951. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3101
32.
UedaK. (2013). Animacy perception: Lifelikeness that we perceive from artifacts. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, 31(9), 833–835. https://doi.org/10.7210/jrsj.31.833
33.
VischerR. (1994). On the optical sense of form: A contribution to aesthetics. In MallgraveH. F.IkonomouE. (Eds.), Empathy, form, and space: Problems in German aesthetics, 1873–1893 (pp. 89–124). Getty Publications.
34.
WangS.RochatP. (2017). Human perception of animacy in light of the uncanny valley phenomenon. Perception, 46(12), 1386–1411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006617722742
35.
WilsonE. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
36.
WolfO. O.WigginsG. A. (2018). Look! It’s moving! Is it alive? How movement affects humans’ affinity to living and non-living entities. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 11(4), 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2018.2820707
