Seed Media Group

The World's Fair

All manner of human creativity on display

Search this blog

Profile

profile.gif David Ng is Director of the Advanced Molecular Biology Laboratory at the University of British Columbia - this is a just a fancier way of calling himself a science teacher.

profile.gifBenjamin Cohen is an Asst. Professor of Science, Tech., and Society at the University of Virginia. He studies the place of S & T in environmental history, policy, and ethics. He also writes other stuff.

mappsmall.gifTrying to find your way around this place? Like most expositions, we offer a map: Map of The World's Fair





Cannonball%20Morris%20Icon.jpg


The%20A-B%20icon.jpg




"The world is full of light and life, and the true crime is not to be interested in it." A.S. Byatt

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Links

Blogroll

And so forth...

« A Word About Our Sb Sponsors | Main | How Do You Choose Your Food? »

Things that are curious: Can a machine tickle?

Category: Links to Other Conversations and Articles
Posted on: August 20, 2007 11:29 AM, by David Ng

It begins:

"It has been observed at least since the time of Aristotle that people cannot tickle themselves, but the reason remains elusive."

What we have here is a research paper (by CHRISTINE R. HARRIS and NICHOLAS CHRISTENFELD) that looks at a variety of hypotheses (namely two called the reflex and the interpersonal)on this phenomenon, and then attempts to discern the two by using a "tickling machine." Here's the rest of the abstract:

Two sorts of explanations have been suggested. The interpersonal explanation suggests that tickling is fundamentally interpersonal and thus requires another person as the source of the touch. The reflex explanation suggests that tickle simply requires an element of unpredictability or uncontrollability and is more like a reflex or some other stereotyped motor pattern. To test these explanations, we manipulated the perceived source of tickling. Thirty-five subjects were tickled twice--once by the experimenter, and once, they believed, by an automated machine. The reflex view predicts that our "tickle machine" should be as effective as a person in producing laughter, whereas the interpersonal view predicts significantly attenuated responses. Supporting the reflex view, subjects smiled, laughed, and wiggled just as often in response to the machine as to the experimenter. Self-reports of ticklishness were also virtually identical in the two conditions. Ticklish laughter evidently does not require that the stimulation be attributed to another person, as interpersonal accounts imply.

The entire paper is here(in pdf format) for you to take a look at, but I thought the Apparatus and Materials section in the Methodology was worth sharing additionally (i.e. how to build a tickling machine).

The tickle machine was designed to look and sound like a robotic hand that was capable of movement without the experimenter's assistance. The hand was attached by a long flexible hose to an impressive array of equipment that could plausibly control its motion. This equipment, when turned on, produced a vibrating sound that could be that of a genuine robotic apparatus.

You know, I'd be real curious to see what the grant application looked like for this type of research...

Comments

christenfeld's the joker with the research on dogs looking like their owners and initials that spell bad things dooming you for life. he shoulda just stuck to his filled-pause research...

Posted by: Drugmonkey | August 29, 2007 3:04 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most German

Search All Blogs