Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019) 106–113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

A huggable communication medium can provide sustained listening support T

for special needs students in a classroom
Junya Nakanishia,b,∗, Hidenobu Sumiokab, Hiroshi Ishiguroa,b
a
Intelligent Robotics Laboratory, Graduated School of Engineering Science, Osaka University, 1–1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan
b
Hiroshi Ishiguro Laboratory, Advanced Telecommunication Research Institute International, 2-2-2, Hikaridai, Seikacho, Sorakugun, Kyoto, 619-0237, Japan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Poor listening ability is a serious problem for pupils who suffer from a wide range of developmental disabilities.
A huggable communication medium Although recent advances in technology provide such pupils with supportive systems that improve educational
Classroom listening acoustic environments, they do not support their mental stress while they are listening in classrooms. Our
Students with special needs current study proposes a huggable communication medium to reduce mental stress of listeners in addition to
An emotional support
preparing a better acoustic environment. We investigated its impact on pupils with special needs and long-term
A sustained support
use. Special needs pupils listened to their teachers or classmates in a general listening situation and in another
situation where they listened through a huggable communication medium called Hugvie for three months. We
used a memory test to evaluate listening performances and questionnaires about “intention to use” to evaluate
acceptance to Hugvie for long-term use. The results showed that listening through Hugvies improved the scores
of memory tests about information provided by teachers. In particular, the scores of distracted pupils with
emotional problems tended to greatly improve. The improvement of their memory test scores continued for three
months. The pupils' impressions of Hugvies also indicated their preference for long-term use. These findings
suggest that a huggable communication medium can support the classroom listening of special needs pupils in
their daily school life.

1. Introduction
Listening is a crucial skill for human growth and development for
success in school because such educational instructions as teaching and
coaching are generally provided verbally in educational environments.
For example, 66% of the duration of German primary school classes and
53% of U.S. college classes are consumed by students listening to tea-
chers/professors (Bohlken, 1999; Imhof & Weinhard, 2004). Un-
surprisingly, many studies have reported that poor listening skills ne-
gatively influence reading, writing, and math performances (Bennett,
Ruuska, & Sherman, 1980; Elliott, Hammer, & Scholl, 1989;
McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000).
However, young pupils are often unable to listen well during class
because of their immature self-control skills. They are learning the skill
of continuing to focus on the speaker's voice, and their attention is
easily attracted by other stimuli. In particular, it is difficult for pupils
with special needs (i.e., developmental disabilities and disorders) to
listen well in classrooms since their listening is further handcuffed by
their disabilities (Dahle & McCollister, 1986; McInnes, Humphries,
Hogg-Johnson, & Tannock, 2003). Thus, listening support is crucial for
education.
Previous approaches to such support included improvement of such
poor sound situations as loud noise or large distances between teachers
and pupils. Pupils' listening is distracted by noises that are louder than
the normal voice levels of many teachers in classrooms (Finitzo-Hieber,
1988; Ross, Maxon, & Brackett, 1982). Poor sound environments drown
out the speaker's voice and distract the listener's attention from it. A
sound field amplification system (SFA) was developed to improve
educational environments for listening. SFA resembles a loudspeaker
that projects a teacher's voice and raises its level relative to the levels of
other sound sources. SFA minimizes the impact of poor classroom
acoustics to provide a better opportunity for students to clearly hear the
instructions of teachers. Many studies have reported SFA's wide-ranging
positive impacts not only for pupils with typical development but also
for those with special needs (Millett, 2008).
We focused on another factor, mental stress, which impairs im-
mature pupils' self-control ability for listening, that includes fear and
anxiety. Mental stress influences our self-control ability, which is the

∗
Corresponding author. Intelligent Robotics Laboratory, Graduated School of Engineering Science, Osaka University, Machikaneyama-cho, Toyonaka, Osaka, 560-
0043, Japan.
E-mail addresses: nakanishi@irl.sys.es.osaka-u.ac.jp (J. Nakanishi), sumioka@atr.jp (H. Sumioka), ishiguro@sys.es.osaka-u.ac.jp (H. Ishiguro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.008
Received 10 June 2017; Received in revised form 21 September 2018; Accepted 2 October 2018
Available online 03 October 2018
0747-5632/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Nakanishi et al.
critical ability to listen and maintain attention to a speaker's voice
(Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996). Fear and anxiety make it difficult for
people to control themselves and concentrate on speakers (Dalman,
2016; Elkhafaifi, 2005; Vogely, 1998). This is a serious problem for
young pupils who are more prone to stress or anxiety in their school
environments, relationships with classmates, and lessons. They also
have difficulty handling it due to immature self-control (Fabian &
Dunlop, 2007; Wong, 2015). In fact, support for mental stress has
garnered attention in educational curricula (Brigman & Webb, 2003;
Denham, 2006; Raver & Knitzer, 2002; Thompson & Raikes, 2007;
Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2004). Thus, both sound environment pro-
blems and mental stress problems must be addressed to improve lis-
tening.
We previously proposed a huggable communication medium called
Hugvie, which is designed to provide users a hugging experience and
verbal tele-communication. Hugvie is also an effective device to support
listening (Nakanishi, Sumioka, & Ishiguro, 2016). Since such a medium
can transmit a voice with sufficient volume and provide a stress re-
duction effect (Nakanishi, Kuwamura, Minato, Nishio, & Ishiguro,
2013; Sumioka, Nakae, Kanai, & Ishiguro, 2013), it might simulta-
neously solve the above problems. In fact, our previous case studies
showed that a storytelling system, which consists of Hugvie and a radio
broadcasting system, had a more calming effect on the behavior of
preschool pupils than regular storytelling in classrooms (Nakanishi
et al., 2016).
However, no empirical studies have examined the educational effect
of a huggable communication medium with special needs pupils. It also
remains unclear whether such a medium can continue to support young
pupils throughout long-term use. Therefore, this paper focused on and
investigated its impact on pupils with special needs and long-term use.
We conducted a case study where special needs pupils used a huggable
communication medium during their morning meetings in an elemen-
tary school.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Listening skill and its relation to memory and self-control
According to a skills-based scheme of listening-centered commu-
nication called the HURIER model (Wolvin, 2010), listening skills are
divided into six processes: hearing, interpreting, understanding, eval-
uating, remembering, and responding. Hearing is the entrance of lis-
tening, in which a person makes decisions about which acoustic sti-
mulus to focus on. Interpreting, understanding, and evaluating overlap
and are related to the analysis of acoustic stimulus in which a person
grasps the literal meaning, context, or validity of the information re-
ceived with nonverbal cues. In the remembering process, we store the
analyzed stimuli that are used for our responses, either immediately or
at some later point. The listener's response, which is the final compo-
nent of the listening process, is influenced by the five processes that
precede it.
This model suggests that we can evaluate listening performances by
assessing how much the listener remembers what s/he received or how
properly s/he responds to what s/he received. Actually, previous stu-
dies assessed listener's memory or responses to evaluate whether lis-
tening skills improved (Dahle & McCollister, 1986; Dalman, 2016;
Elkhafaifi, 2005; McInnes et al., 2003; Millett, 2008; Vogely, 1998).
Although the HURIER model is based on a behavioral perspective,
within the framework of cognitive psychology, listening is referred to as
an intentional and controlled process that requires attentional capacity
and self-control (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977; Shiffrin & Schneider,
1977). This implies that listening is interrupted when the control of the
attention fails due to external or internal attractors, such as environ-
mental acoustic noise and mental stress. In fact, noise and anxiety ne-
gatively impact attention control (Sanz, 1993; Eysenck et al., 2007) and
listening (Dalman, 2016; Elkhafaifi, 2005; Klatte, 2013; Vogely, 1998).
107
Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019) 106–113
2.2. Poor listening skills with special needs pupils
Pupils with special needs often have difficulty listening. Actually,
poor listening ability is a serious problem for pupils with a wide range
of developmental disabilities, such as attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), Apert Syndrome, and anxiety disorders (Bennetts &
Flynn, 2002; Dahle & McCollister, 1986; Flexer, 1990; Leung, 2006;
Maag, 2006, 2007; McInnes et al. 2003). For example, ADHD is a
neurodevelopmental type of mental disorder that is characterized by
difficulty paying attention or controlling behaviors that are in-
appropriate for a person's age (American Psychiatric Association,
2013). Anxiety disorders are mental disorders that share the features of
excessive fear and anxiety and related behavioral disturbances
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Such attentional and emotional problems interrupt the self-control
of attention to listening. Attentional problems cause failure to control
one's attention to listening. Emotional problems, such as excessive an-
xiety or fear, make pupils more often pay attention to mental stress at
the expense of listening. Therefore, the listening of special needs pupils
is interfered with more than that of pupils with typical development
and should be supported by controlling their attention during listening.
2.3. Stress reduction of interpersonal and mediated touches
Such interpersonal touch as shaking hands, stroking, hugging, and
kissing has the potential to relieve mental stress. For example, holding
hands or tapping another's forearm can reduce anxiety and promote
calm (Feldman, Singer, & Zagoory, 2010). Gentle stroking and touching
can reduce stress hormones, which are proportional to the degree of
psychological stress (Ditzen et al., 2007; Whitcher & Fisher, 1979).
Since people empirically know the impact of interpersonal touch on
psychological well-being, it has been employed in psychotherapy
(Phelan, 2009) and nursing (Anderson & Taylor, 2011; Gleeson &
Timmins, 2005). Stress reduction by touch is also valid for special needs
pupils (Cullen, 2005; Polak, 2017). Interestingly, some studies report
that children with autism and ADHD also benefit from massage therapy
and show less inattentive in classrooms (Field, 2010), implying poten-
tial effect of touch on attentional problems. These results show that
interpersonal touch can reduce the negative influence of attentional and
emotional problems on people with disabilities.
Recent studies with tele-communication technology have argued
that touch mediated by artificial systems also has a stress reduction
effect that resembles interpersonal touch (Huisman, 2017). A mediated
hand-touch against a part of an arm reduced the heartbeat rates of
participants after they watched a sad video clip (Cabibihan, Zheng, &
Cher, 2012). Even though this study emulated touch with hands, touch
with a hug has also been focused on in research of mediated inter-
personal touch. Many virtual hug devices have been developed. In the
“Hug Machine,” which seems to be the first prototype of a haptic sti-
mulator of a hug (Grandin, 1984), a user was positioned between two,
foam rubber boards and firmly squeezed, producing soothing and
comforting reactions. Another study showed that this machine reduced
stress in autistic children (Edelson, Edelson, & Kerr, 1999). “The Hug” is
a robotic communication medium that reflects the shape and the ges-
tures of a human hug to explore a conceptual design of a robotic pro-
duct that facilitates intimate communication across distances (DiSalvo,
Gemperle, Forlizzi, & Montgomery, 2003). A hug jacket produced a
tactile stimulation of hugging with pressure or vibrators controlled by a
remote person's input (Mueller et al., 2005, pp. 1673–1676; Morikawa,
Hashimoto, Munakata, & Okunaka, 2006; Teh et al., 2008). As de-
scribed above, Hugvie is a huggable communication medium that is
designed to give users a hugging experience during remote conversa-
tions (Minato, Nishio, & Ishiguro, 2013). While other virtual hug de-
vices do not conduct quantitative evaluation, it is reported that Hugvie
reduces stress hormones and feelings of depression, hostility, and fa-
tigue during remote conversations with it (Nakanishi et al., 2013;
J. Nakanishi et al. Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019) 106–113

Sumioka et al., 2013). Therefore, we assume that the effect of a

mediated interpersonal touch can be applied to emotional problems
about listening; that is, mediated interpersonal touch reduces mental
stress that distracts the pupils' attention during listening tasks or si-
tuations.

2.4. Listening support for special needs pupils

Previous studies with SFA addressed the improvement of sound

environments in the classroom not only for the listening of pupils with
typical development but also those with special needs. For example,
SFA decreased pupils' errors on a word identification task (Flexer,
1990) and improved the speed with which pupils followed their tea-
cher's instructions (Flexer, 1990; Maag, 2006, 2007). However, this
approach ignores pupils with listening difficulties due to emotional
problems. We expect Hugvie to support those with attentional and
emotional problems because it helps people focus on the teacher's voice
and reduces mental stress.
Although our previous case studies identified the impact of a hug-
gable communication medium on pupils with typical development
(Nakanishi et al., 2016), the impact on special needs pupils remains
unclear. We expect that a huggable communication medium will sup-
port the listening of pupils with attentional and emotional problems
because its functions intrinsically support such pupils. Furthermore, our
previous studies reported only observations of hearing behavior in the
HURIER model; that is, they did not evaluate pupil memories or lis-
tening response with a quantitative measurement. Since pupils might
pretend to listen or pay attention to tactile stimulation, we have to
confirm whether they are actually focusing on the listening contents
and remembering them while using Hugvie. Thus, we formulated the
following hypothesis:
H1. A huggable communication medium improve the memory of the
special needs pupils about the listened information.
2.5. Long-term use of educational situations
One concern about applying a huggable communication medium for
pupils is whether its effect persists throughout long-term use, that is
more than several times use. Although we expect that a huggable
communication medium will support the listening of special needs
pupils, we have not utilized it for long-term daily listening in class-
rooms. Long-term trials are important to introduce new devices because
long-term use might reduce the intention to use them due to decreased
interest in their novelty, especially for young pupils (e.g., Kanda, Sato,
Saiwaki, & Ishiguro, 2007; Komatsubara, Shiomi, Kanda, Ishiguro, &
Hagita, 2014). Less intention to use might reduce the performance
improvements produced by the devices.
Previous studies on interpersonal touch show that it enhances such
intimacy as social bonding or trust between people or groups (Henley,
1973). For instance, social touch enhances the performance of basket-
ball teams by building cooperation (Kraus, Huang, & Keltner, 2010).
Since using a huggable communication medium produces a similar ef-
fect to interpersonal touch, a user can enhance intimacy for the medium
without getting tired of using it, like a child who plays with a stuffed
animal for a long time. Thus, we propose:
H2. H1 persists over long-term use.
Fig. 1. Hugvie: a huggable communication medium.
use, enjoyment of use, and ease of use. Finally, based on the results, we
discussed the possibilities of a storytelling system with a huggable
communication medium for educational environments.
3. Method
3.1. Apparatus
Hugvie is a human-shaped cushion (75-cm high, weighing 600 g)
that was designed as a communication device to give a hugging ex-
perience (Fig. 1). It is a soft cushion filled with polystyrene microbeads
and covered with spandex fiber. A hands-free mobile phone inside a
pocket in its head enables users to talk while hugging it. Although
Hugvie was originally designed for one-to-one interactive commu-
nication (e.g., Sumioka et al., 2013), we introduced it into one-to-many
communication in combination with an FM radio broadcasting system
(Nakanishi et al., 2016). We used the same system as the one from our
previous study: a storytelling system that combined Hugvie with an FM
radio broadcasting system. The broadcasting system carries the sound
information to an unspecific number of receivers by radio waves. The
storytelling system with Hugvie conveys a speaker's voice to listeners
with a radio receiver inside its pocket instead of a mobile phone. Fig. 2
shows an overview of the storytelling system with Hugvie. A human
speaker talks to listeners by a microphone connected to an FM radio
transmitter. Listeners using Hugvies listen to the same speaker's voice
near their ears by each Hugvie radio receiver. In this study, we used our
storytelling system with a Hugvie for special needs pupils who si-
multaneously listen to their teachers or classmates. Note that the pupils
can also directly listen to the teacher's voice since both are in the same
classroom. A Hugvie voice is the strongest stimuli among other sounds
because an experimenter can adjust its volume in advance.
3.2. Participants
Our participants were seven, six-to eleven-year-old elementary
school boys and girls (mean age = 8.7 years, SD = 1.9, Table 1) with

2.6. Current study

Our current study addressed the above two hypotheses through

long-term use of Hugvies in the morning meetings for special needs
students in an elementary school. We tackled H1 by evaluating their
listening abilities with a memory test. H2 was evaluated based on the
stability of improved listening and questionnaires about intention to Fig. 2. Hugvie storytelling system.

108
J. Nakanishi et al.
Table 1
Participant characteristics.
Grade in elementary school Gender Main problem
1 Male Intellectual
1 Male Intellectual
3 Male Emotional
5 Male Emotional
5 Female Intellectual
5 Female Intellectual
6 Male Emotional
mild disabilities and listening problems who attend a class for special
needs pupils in Kyoto. Both their parents and teachers gave them per-
mission to attend the special class in agreement that was concluded
through a discussion based on the pupils' examination results of their
emotion or intelligence and their behavior in school. Three of the seven
were judged to mainly suffer from emotional problems, and the re-
maining four had intellectual problems. Their emotional problems in-
cluded struggling to remain patient during long listening and judging
the feelings of others. Their intellectual problems included intellectual
levels that greatly lagged behind the average level of the same year in
the school. Although the pupils gathered in their special class classroom
during morning and afternoon meetings, they attended general or
special classes of each subject area based on the progress of their in-
dividual developmental states. The special classes occupied more than
half of their daily schedules. Three special class teachers participated as
speakers.
3.3. Experimental design
The experiments were conducted from late November 2014 to the
middle of February 2015 except for the New Year's holidays and several
days that were excluded due to various experimenter or school cir-
cumstances. Hugvies were introduced into the morning meetings that
are regularly held on weekday mornings in the special needs classroom
(Fig. 3). The pupils sat in their assigned seats at the “P” places. Three
teachers talked to them somewhere in the “T” places. Before the ex-
periments started, the subject pupils were instructed how to use Hug-
vies, and then they listened to a 10-min story by Hugvies as a trial. The
Hugvies remained in the classroom during the experiments, and the
pupils could freely interact with them during their free time, although
no radio receiver was inserted. The experiments were recorded through
a video camera. We observed the morning meetings twenty times with/
without Hugvies: ten times as a general condition where teachers and
Fig. 3. Classroom environment during morning meetings. Note. Three teachers
talk to pupils somewhere in the “T” places.
109
Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019) 106–113
pupils held regular meetings and ten times as a Hugvie condition where
the pupils listened to their teachers by Hugvies. The two conditions
were held alternately with an intra-individual design.
The morning meeting included a greeting, attendance, self-reports
from the pupils about their mental and physical conditions, setting the
daily goal to be achieved by all pupils (goal-setting activity, hereafter),
a brief recounting of a recent event by one of the pupils (speech ac-
tivity), and the day's news from the teachers (information-telling ac-
tivity). In the goal-setting activity, pupils voted on the daily goals of the
class. The chairperson pupil of the morning meeting asked for each
pupil's opinion and listed them on the blackboard, and then common
goals were decided by a majority vote. The selected goals included
being on time, studying hard, or not running in the corridors. In the
case of ties, all of the tied opinions were chosen. In the speech activity,
a pupil related a recent memorable event or experience to the rest of the
class. Then the others asked questions about it. In information-telling
activity, each teacher shared important information that the pupils
should remember that day or for several days. Examples of such in-
formation included committee activities, health concerns, and re-
quirements for the next day's activities. In the Hugvie condition, the
pupils listened to all of the spoken contents through it. At the afternoon
meetings that are regularly held at around 3 p.m. before they go home,
the pupils took a memory test (described below) about the contents of
the morning meeting: goal-setting, speech, and information-telling ac-
tivities. After all the experiments were finished, they filled out a
questionnaire about intention to use, enjoyment of use, and ease of use.
We also interviewed a class teacher about the pupils' behavior in the
experiment after all of them were finished.
This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Advanced
Telecommunication Research Institute International (approved
number: 14-502-8). We also received permission from the elementary
school to conduct an experiment for research purposes.
4. Measurement and analysis
4.1. Memory test
We evaluated whether the listening of the pupils improved with a
memory test about the spoken contents of each morning meeting. It
consisted of three questions about the goal-settings, speech, and in-
formation-telling activities: (a) “What was/were today's goal/goals?”;
(b) “What did [pupil X] talk about today?”; and (c) “What information
did [teacher Y] give us today?” This multiple choice test included both
correct and incorrect answers. The pupils could choose one or more
answers from eight options for question (a) and one answer from five
options for questions (b) and (c). The options included a “Can't re-
member” choice. The correct and incorrect options were made by an
experimenter who attended the morning meeting. Before the memory
test was conducted, the teachers confirmed that the content had no such
problem for pupils and the school as hurtful or rude options.
The memory performance of each pupil was evaluated with average
accuracy scores for ten days. We calculated them by counting the
number of correct answers and dividing it by the correct answers. In
most cases, the score of each question on each day was zero or one
because the number of the original correct answers was only one, but in
some cases for question (a), the number of original correct answers
exceeded one. In the case, we calculated the score with a formula: the
number of correct answers divided by the number of original correct
answers. For example, when a pupil chose only one of two original
correct answers, he/she only received a half score, namely 0.5. No data
were recorded when a pupil was absent. When a pupil chaired a
morning meeting in the goal-setting activity and the Hugvie condition,
his/her score for question (a) was excluded from the evaluation because
he/she did not use a Hugvie due to writing on the blackboard. When a
pupil was giving a brief talk in the speech activity, his/her score of
question (b) was also excluded because s/he was not a listener. Each
J. Nakanishi et al. Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019) 106–113

Table 2
Questionnaire details about intention to use, enjoyment of use, and ease of use.
Intention to use I want to continue using Hugvie at the morning meetings.
I want to use Hugvie in the school lessons.
I want to use Hugvie at home.
I want to use Hugvie every day.
Enjoyment of use I enjoyed listening by Hugvie.
I am interested in Hugvie.
I was bored with Hugvie.
I had fun in the morning meetings with Hugvie.
Ease of use Hugging Hugvie was easy.
I easily understood how to use Hugvie.
Listening by Hugvie was easy.
Using Hugvie was easy.

pupil's average scores of each question in each condition were calcu-

lated and compared between the general and Hugvie conditions.
Furthermore, for the questions that showed significant improvement,
we also compared the average scores of the first- and second-halves
among the pupils in the Hugvie condition to evaluate the stability of
their improved listening.
Fig. 4. Average accuracy rates scores in each memory question of each condi-
4.2. Questionnaire about intention to use, enjoyment of use, and ease of use tion. Note. “x” mark denotes the mean value of scores.

After all the experimental morning meetings were finished, the

SD = 0.17, Median(Mdn) = 0.76, Q1 = 0.76, Q3 = 0.92, Hugvie:
pupils filled out a questionnaire about their intention to use, enjoyment
M = 0.79, SD = 0.15, Mdn = 0.75, Q1 = 0.69, Q3 = 0.90; Speech:
of use, and ease of use (see Iwamura, Shiomi, Kanda, Ishiguro, & Hagita,
General: M = 0.79, SD = 0.34, Mdn = 0.76, Q1 = 0.76, Q3 = 1.00,
2011) to evaluate their acceptance of Hugvies for long-term use. For
Hugvie: M = 0.72, SD = 0.26, Mdn = 0.78, Q1 = 0.52, Q3 = 0.94;
accepting and using new technology for a long term, intention to use is
Informative telling: General: M = 0.57, SD = 0.20, Mdn = 0.56,
critical (Davis, 1993). Enjoyment of use and ease of use are related to
Q1 = 0.39, Q3 = 0.72, Hugvie: M = 0.75, SD = 0.20, Mdn = 0.80,
the intention to use factor (Heerink, Kröse, Evers, & Wielinga, 2008).
Q1 = 0.62, Q3 = 0.89). The scores in the information-telling activity
Therefore, the questionnaire results examined the effects of the users'
were significantly improved by Hugvie (t(6) = 2.65,
acceptance over the long-term use of Hugvies.
p = 0.038 < 0.05, ES: d = 0.89), but no significant differences were
The questionnaires consisted of four questions in each category with
shown among the general and Hugvie conditions in the goal-setting and
a five-point Likert scale from 1 to 5: “strongly disagree,” “slightly dis-
speech activities (Setting goals: t(6) = -0.30, p = 0.77, Speech: Z
agree,” “neither,” “slightly agree,” and “strongly agree” (Table 2). The
(6) = 4, p = 0.42). Scrutinizing the individual scores of the informa-
score of the third question, “I was bored with Hugvie,” in the enjoyment
tion-telling activity, higher improvements (approximately double) of
of use was inverted because the question's meaning is contrary to the
two pupils with emotional problems are shown in the Hugvie condition
category. Although the original questionnaire consists of a seven point
compared with the general condition.
Likert scale, we used a five point scale because of teachers' concern that
Fig. 5 shows the average scores of the information-telling activity in
a seven point scale is difficult for young pupils to answer.
the first and second-halves of this experiment in the Hugvie condition
for evaluating the stability of the listening improvements (First half:
4.3. Teacher interviews M = 0.68, SD = 0.30, Mdn = 0.68, Q1 = 0.68, Q3 = 0.80; Second half:
M = 0.82, SD = 0.20, Mdn = 0.80, Q1 = 0.78, Q3 = 1.00). No sig-
We interviewed the class teachers about the pupils' behavior in the nificant differences are shown between the average scores of the two
experiment after it finished to gather opinions from a professional
viewpoint about the school life of the pupils. We asked them to describe
how calm their pupils were while they listened to confirm the stress
reduction effect of Hugvies.

4.4. Statistical analysis

As a memory test, we used a paired t-test or a Wilcoxon signed-rank

test to evaluate the differences of the average scores. In the case of the
normality that was confirmed with a Shapiro-Wilk normality test, we
used a paired t-test. Otherwise, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.
For the questionnaire about intention to use, we used a one-sample t-
test to evaluate the difference from a middle value (value = 3) that
indicates a neutral opinion to Hugvie.

5. Results

5.1. Improvement of memory performance

Individual average scores of each memory question of each condi- Fig. 5. Average accuracy rates scores in first and second halves of this experi-
tion are shown in Fig. 4 (Setting goals: General: Mean(M) = 0.81, ment. Note. “x” mark denotes the mean value of scores.

110
J. Nakanishi et al.
Fig. 6. Average questionnaire scores in each category. Note. “x” mark denotes
the mean value of scores.
halves among the pupils (Z(6) = 2, p = 0.34).
5.2. Acceptance of Hugvies for long-term use
The average scores in each category of the questionnaire are shown
in Fig. 6 (Intention to use: M = 4.21, SD = 0.92, Mdn = 4.75,
Q1 = 3.88, Q3 = 4.88; Enjoyment of use: M = 4.43, SD = 0.56,
Mdn = 4.50, Q1 = 4.00, Q3 = 5.00; Ease of use: M = 4.64, SD = 0.42,
Mdn = 5.00, Q1 = 4.25, Q3 = 5.00). Each score was significantly
higher than the middle value (value = 3) by a t-test (Intension to use: t
(6) = 3.23, p = 0.017 < 0.05, Enjoyment of use: t(6) = 6.22,
p = 8.0 × 10−4 < 0.05, Ease of use: t(6) = 9.59, p = 7.3 × 10−5 <
0.05). This result indicates that pupils had relatively good perceptions
and impressions of Hugvies in each category.
5.3. Teacher interviews
In an interview, one class teacher commented, “Pupils using
Hugvies appeared to be calmer than usual. Hugging may be good for
avoiding boredom while listening.” This teacher added: “They made
huge efforts while listening through Hugvies.” The teachers did not
report any pupil behavior that indicated either excited or stressful states
in the Hugvie condition.
6. Discussion
6.1. Improvement of memory performance of special needs pupils through
Hugvie
The memory test results show that the memory performance of the
pupils improved more when they listened to the information by Hugvies
than direct telling. Hugvie provided a better opportunity for them to
concentrate on listening to the teacher's instructions.
On the other hand, we did not find any significant improvements in
the goal-setting and speech activities. We infer that this result was
caused by the ceiling effect. Most pupils showed almost perfect scores in
the general condition (Fig. 4). The questions about the goal-setting and
speech activities might have been too easy to answer because the items
to remember were based on insufficient listening contents. For example,
in setting the goals, pupils often made short comments: “I want to study
hard.” The questions about the information-telling activity were more
difficult because teachers gave them too much information. This
111
Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019) 106–113
probably explains why improvement was only observed in the in-
formation-telling activity. Thus, we argue that Hugvies effectively
supported the listening of special needs pupils when the provided
contents are hard to remember.
Therefore, the memory test results support hypothesis 1: a huggable
communication medium improves the memory of the listened in-
formation for special needs pupils. Although our previous studies only
confirmed improved hearing behavior with a huggable communication
medium (Nakanishi et al., 2016), this study demonstrated that pupils
using a huggable communication medium paid more attention to the
listening contents and remembered more of them in the general con-
dition. The impact of a huggable communication medium is valid not
only for pupils with typical development but also for special needs
pupils.
6.2. Stable acceptance to Hugvies in long-term use
The stability of the improvement caused by Hugvies is shown by
comparing the memory test scores of the information-telling activity
between the first- and second-half average scores in the Hugvie con-
dition. The pupils maintained their improved performance that was
produced by the devices. In long-term field trials with a humanoid
robot, pupils tended to get tired of it with decreased novelty after about
two weeks (Kanda et al., 2007; Komatsubara et al., 2014). Considering
those results, stability over approximately three months suggests that
Hugvie might provide continuous support in more long-term use.
Relatively good perceptions and impressions of Hugvies are shown
by the questionnaire results about intention to use, enjoyment of use,
and ease of use. In studies with a humanoid robot, most of the ques-
tionnaire scores of the experimental conditions showed over half of the
max scores while those of the control conditions showed around less
than half of the scores (Iwamura et al., 2011; Kanda, Shimada, &
Koizumi, 2012; Shiomi & Hagita, 2015). Although we cannot directly
compare our results with these studies since we used simpler scales and
no guarantee confirms that the Hugvie scores are sufficiently practical,
the scores suggest at least a positive influence on users' perceptions and
impressions due to long-term use of Hugvies.
These results support hypothesis 2: H1 persists in long-term use. We
confirmed that improvement was maintained and that pupils continued
to accept a huggable communication medium. Our finding suggests the
potential of haptic interaction, which plays an important role for
maintaining the preference of users to communication devices. This
finding is supported by Harlow's experiments with infant macaques
raised by artificial surrogate mothers. Harlow emphasized the im-
portance of contact comfort in the development of affectional responses
(Harlow, 1958). A previous study with a social robot also supports our
result, suggesting the importance of touch interactions with a robot to
achieve long-term bonding and socialization between the robot and
toddlers (Tanaka, Cicurel, Movellan, & Javier, 2007).
6.3. Impact of stress reduction on listening and possibilities
We assume that huggable communication improves listening
through stress reduction in addition to preparing a better acoustic en-
vironment. But, is that supposition actually valid in our case study? We
argue that the following reasons mention the contribution of a stress
reduction effect. First, in this experiment, the distance between the
pupils and the teachers in the general condition seemed so short that
their voices were louder than other sound sources (Fig. 3). Teachers
generally talked to the pupils near them. In spite of that, the pupils'
listening improved in the Hugvie condition, denoting that Hugvies
supported their listening by another factor other than the effect of a
clear acoustic environment. Thus, we believe that in such listening si-
tuations, Hugvie relieves emotional problems like stress and anxiety
reduction. Second, we found that high improvements in the memory
test scores (approximately double) were found in the two pupils with
J. Nakanishi et al.
emotional problems. This also denotes that the stress reduction effect
improved listening. Third, in an interview teachers thought that pupils
became calmer in the Hugvie conditions. From the above, we conclude
that Hugvies contributed not only to the clear conveyance of a voice but
also to the stability of the pupils' mental states while listening. This
indicates advances in listening problems compared with SFA.
In SFA studies, the pupils' ability, which was supported by produ-
cing a clear acoustic environment, has had a wide-range of positive
impacts on pupil performance: accurate discrimination of words and
spoken languages, increases of verbal involvement in discussions,
phonological awareness, responses to teacher's statements, learning
English as a Second Language, reading, writing and numeracy (Millett,
2008). Perhaps Hugvies can also produce these positive impacts with
solutions for emotional problems for a wider-range of pupils including
those with special needs than SFA does.
On the other hand, note that Hugvies face challenges before prac-
tical introduction into educational environments, including a great deal
of maintenance. To establish Hugvie storytelling systems, we have to
provide a Hugvie for every pupil, which may be complicated for tea-
chers. Hygiene is another issue because Hugvies get dirty very easily
due to contact with users. Keeping them clean is time consuming. Such
maintenance costs explain one reason why Hugvies have not already
been introduced into educational environments.
6.4. Limitation
Our study has some limitations. First, the degree of difficulty in the
memory tests might have varied every day due to the different contents
provided by the teacher. Although we counterbalanced the order of the
conditions, it is possible that the tests in the Hugvie conditions were
easier than those in the general condition. Thus, the effect of Hugvies
on memory must be experimentally verified. Second, we failed to in-
vestigate which Hugvie features contribute to our results. The same
results might not be found with other huggable communication devices.
Hugvies resemble a soft cushion with a human-like shape in addition to
a huggable communication device, which might have influenced our
results. For example, a human shape lets pupils feel a human presence
during the hugs, which might reduce more stress. Finally, the Hugvie
effect on pupils with special needs should be verified more in depth
because we only had seven subjects who just suffered from mild dis-
abilities. We must investigate whether the same results are found in
pupils with other disabilities.
7. Conclusion
We addressed the following research propositions through the long-
term use of a huggable communication medium called Hugvie in the
morning meetings in an elementary school special needs class:
Hypothesis 1: a huggable communication medium improves the
memory of the listened information for special needs pupils; Hypothesis
2: H1 persists in long-term use. The memory test results showed that
Hugvies improved their listening, particularly when they needed to
concentrate to listen to many contents. Distracted pupils with emo-
tional problems tended to make larger improvements, which suggests
that Hugvies strongly relieved emotional problems during listening si-
tuations. The pupils maintained their improved performance that was
produced by the devices over a three-month period. Their perceptions
and impressions of Hugvies were positive for long-term use. Our hug-
gable communication medium showed the possibility of supporting the
classroom listening of distracted special needs pupils for daily listening
in a classroom. We believe that our result will inspire a new avenue of
educational support for pupils with emotional problems.
Acknowledgments
This work was mainly supported by the Japan Science and
112
Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019) 106–113
Technology Agency (JST), the Core Research of Evolutional Science and
Technology (CREST) research promotion program. Part of this work
was supported by JST, the Exploratory Research for Advanced
Technology (ERATO), ISHIGURO symbiotic human-robot interaction
project, Grant Number JPMJER1401, JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
16J05713, Japan. The authors would like to thank the staff at the
elementary school and all participants (students and their parents) for
their cooperation.
References
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental dis-
orders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.
Anderson, J. G., & Taylor, A. G. (2011). Effects of healing touch in clinical practice: A
systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 29(3),
221–228.
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview.
Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–15.
Bennett, F. C., Ruuska, S. H., & Sherman, R. (1980). Middle ear function in learning-
disabled children. Pediatrics, 66(2), 254–260.
Bennetts, L., & Flynn, M. (2002). Improving the classroom listening skills of children with
Down syndrome by using sound-field amplification. Down Syndrome: Research and
Practice, 8(1), 19–24.
Bohlken, B. (1999). Substantiating the fact that listening is proportionately most used
language skill. The Listening Post, 70, 5.
Brigman, G. A., & Webb, L. D. (2003). Ready to learn: Teaching kindergarten students
school success skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(5), 286–292.
Cabibihan, J. J., Zheng, L., & Cher, C. (2012). Affective tele-touch. Social Robotics,
348–356.
Cullen, L. A., Barlow, J. H., & Cushway, D. (2005). Positive touch, the implications for
parents and their children with autism: An exploratory study. Complementary
Therapies in Clinical Practice, 11(3), 182–189.
Dahle, A. J., & McCollister, F. P. (1986). Hearing and otologic disorders in children with
Down syndrome. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90(6), 636–642.
Dalman, R. M. (2016). The Relationship between listening anxiety, listening compre-
hension strategies, and listening performance among Iranian EFL university students.
International Journal of Modern Language Teaching and Learning, 1(6), 241–252.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user
perceptions and behavioral impacts.
Denham, S. A. (2006). Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: What
is it and how do we assess it? Early Education and Development, 17(1), 57–89.
DiSalvo, C., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., & Montgomery, E. (2003). The hug: An exploration
of robotic form for intimate communication. Robot and human interactive commu-
nication, 2003. Proceedings.ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE international workshop on (pp.
403–408). IEEE.
Ditzen, B., Neumann, I. D., Bodenmann, G., von Dawans, B., Turner, R. A., Ehlert, U.,
et al. (2007). Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate
responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32(5), 565–574.
Edelson, S. M., Edelson, M. G., & Kerr, D. (1999). Physiological and behavioral changes of
deep pressure: A pilot study investigating the efficacy of temple Grandin's hug ma-
chine. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 145–152.
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language
classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 206–220.
Elliott, L. L., Hammer, M. A., & Scholl, M. E. (1989). Fine-grained auditory discrimination
in normal children and children with language-learning problems. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 32(1), 112–119.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336.
Fabian, H., & Dunlop, A. W. (2007). Outcomes of good practice in transition processes for
children entering primary school. Working papers in early childhood development: No.
42. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.
Feldman, R., Singer, M., & Zagoory, O. (2010). Touch attenuates infants' physiological
reactivity to stress. Developmental Science, 13(2), 271–278.
Field, T. (2010). Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: A review.
Developmental Review, 30, 367–383.
Finitzo-Hieber, T. (1988). Classroom acoustics. In R. Roeser (Ed.). Auditory disorders in
school children (pp. 221–233). (2nd ed.). New York: Thieme-Stratton.
Flexer, C., Millin, J. P., & Brown, L. (1990). Children with developmental disabilities: The
effect of sound field amplification on word identification. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 177–182.
Gleeson, M., & Timmins, F. (2005). A review of the use and clinical effectiveness of touch
as a nursing intervention. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 9(1), 69–77.
Grandin, T. (1984). My experiences as an autistic child and review of selected literature.
Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry, 13(3), 144–174.
Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13(No. 12), 673–685.
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. J. (2008). The influence of social presence
on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents, 2(2),
33–40.
Henley, N. M. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observations. Bulletin of the psycho-
nomic society.
Huisman, G. (2017). Social touch technology: A survey of haptic technology for social
touch. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 10(3), 391–408.
J. Nakanishi et al.
Imhof, M., & Weinhard, T. (2004). What did you listen to in school today. 25th annual
convention of the international listening association in Ft. Myers, FL.
Iwamura, Y., Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2011). Do elderly people
prefer a conversational humanoid as a shopping assistant partner in supermarkets?
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human robot interaction (pp. 449–
456). .
Kanda, T., Sato, R., Saiwaki, N., & Ishiguro, H. (2007). A two-month field trial in an
elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics, 23(5), 962–971.
Kanda, T., Shimada, M., & Koizumi, S. (2012). Children learning with a social robot.
Proceedings of the 7th international conference on human robot interaction (pp. 351–
358). .
Klatte, M., Bergström, K., & Lachmann, T. (2013). Does noise affect learning? A short
review on noise effects on cognitive performance in children. Frontiers in Psychology,
4, 578.
Komatsubara, T., Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2014). Can a social
robot help children's understanding of science in classrooms? Proceedings of the second
international conference on human-agent interaction (pp. 83–90). Tsukuba: ACM.
Kraus, M. W., Huang, C., & Keltner, D. (2010). Tactile communication, cooperation, and
performance: An ethological study of the NBA. Emotion, 10(5), 745.
Leung, S. W., & McPherson, B. (2006). Classrooms for Children with Developmental
Disabilities: Sound‐field and public address amplification systems compared.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53(3), 287–299.
Maag, J. W., & Anderson, J. M. (2006). Effects of sound-field amplification to increase
compliance of students with emotional and behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
31(4), 378–393.
Maag, J. W., & Anderson, J. M. (2007). Sound-field amplification to increase compliance
to directions in students with ADHD. Behavioral Disorders, 32(4), 238–253.
McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early
academic problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 15(3), 307–329.
McInnes, A., Humphries, T., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Tannock, R. (2003). Listening com-
prehension and working memory are impaired in attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder irrespective of language impairment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
31(4), 427–443.
Millett, P. (2008). Sound field amplification research summary. Deaf and hard of hearing
program. York: Faculty of Education.
Minato, T., Nishio, S., & Ishiguro, H. (2013). Evoking an affection for communication
partner by a robotic communication medium. Demonstration session proceeding of the
8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction D: Vol. 7 (Tokyo).
Morikawa, O., Hashimoto, S., Munakata, T., & Okunaka, J. (2006). Embrace system for
remote counseling. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Multimodal in-
terfaces (pp. 318–325). ACM.
Mueller, F. F., Vetere, F., Gibbs, M. R., Kjeldskov, J., Pedell, S., & Howard, S. (2005). Hug
over a distance. CHI'05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM.
Nakanishi, J., Kuwamura, K., Minato, T., Nishio, S., & Ishiguro, H. (2013). Evoking af-
fection for a communication partner by a robotic communication medium. The first
international conference on human-agent interaction (iHAI 2013) (pp. 1–8). .
113
Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019) 106–113
Nakanishi, J., Sumioka, H., & Ishiguro, H. (2016). Impact of mediated intimate interac-
tion on education: A huggable communication medium that encourages listening.
Frontiers in Psychology, 7.
Phelan, J. E. (2009). Exploring the use of touch in the psychotherapeutic setting: A
phenomenological review. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
46(1), 97.
Polak, R., Hutchinson, D., Perryman, L., & Brueck, S. (2017). A calming cushion as a
therapeutic wellness tool for youths with disabilities and history of trauma. Social
Work, 62(4), 359–365.
Raver, C. C., & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells policymakers about
strategies to promote social and emotional school readiness among three-and four-year-old
children. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty.
Ross, M., Maxon, A., & Brackett, D. (1982). Hard of hearing children in regular schools.
Prentice Hall.
Sanz, S. A., García, A. M., & García, A. (1993). Road traffic noise around schools: A risk
for pupil's performance? International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, 65(3), 205–207.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information
processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information
processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.
Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
Shiomi, M., & Hagita, N. (2015). Social acceptance of a childcare support robot system.
24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (pp.
13–18). .
Sumioka, H., Nakae, A., Kanai, R., & Ishiguro, H. (2013). Huggable communication
medium decreases cortisol levels. Scientific Reports, 3.
Tanaka, F., Cicurel, A., Movellan, & Javier, R. (2007). Socialization between toddlers and
robots at an early childhood education center. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the USA, 104(No. 46), 17954–17958.
Teh, J. K. S., Cheok, A. D., Peiris, R. L., Choi, Y., Thuong, V., & Lai, S. (2008). Huggy
pajama: A mobile parent and child hugging communication system. Proceedings of the
7th international conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 250–257). ACM.
Thompson, R. A., & Raikes, H. A. (2007). The social and emotional foundations of school
readiness. Social and emotional health in early childhood: Building bridges between ser-
vices and systems (pp. 13–36). .
Vogely, A. J. (1998). Listening comprehension anxiety: Students' reported sources and
solutions. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 67–80.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2004). Strengthening social and emotional compe-
tence in young children—the foundation for early school readiness and success:
Incredible years classroom social skills and problem‐solving curriculum. Infants &
Young Children, 17(2), 96–113.
Whitcher, S. J., & Fisher, J. D. (1979). Multidimensional reaction to therapeutic touch in a
hospital setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 87.
Wolvin, A. D. (Ed.). (2010). Listening and human communication in the 21st century. John
Wiley & Sons.
Wong, M. (2015). Voices of children, parents and teachers: How children cope with stress
during school transition. Early Child Development and Care, 185, 658–678.