A September 12, 2025 Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT) press release (also on EurekAlert but published on September 11, 2025) describes some intriguing research into robot/human relationships,
Researchers from the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT) in Genoa (Italy) and Brown University in Providence (USA) have discovered that people sense the hand of a humanoid robot as part of their body schema, particularly when it comes to carrying out a task together, like slicing a bar of soap. The study has been published in the journal iScience and can pave the way for a better design of robots that have to function in close contact with humans, such as those used in rehabilitation.
The project, led by Alessandra Sciutti, IIT Principal Investigator of the CONTACT unit at IIT, in collaboration with Brown University professor Joo-Hyun Song, explored whether unconscious mechanisms that shape interactions between humans also emerge in interactions between a person and a humanoid robot.
Researchers focused on a phenomenon known as the “near-hand effect”, in which the presence of a hand near an object alters visual attention of a person, because the brain is preparing to use the object. Moreover, the study considers the human brain’s ability to create its “body schema” to move more efficiently in the surrounding space, by integrating objects into it as well.
Through an unconscious process shaped by external stimuli, the brain builds a “body schema” that helps us avoid obstacles or grab objects without looking at them. Any tools can become part of this internal map as long as they are useful for a task, like a tennis racket that feels like an arm extension to the player who uses it daily. Since body schema is constantly evolving, the research team led by Sciutti explored whether a robot could also become part of it.
Giulia Scorza Azzarà, PhD student at IIT and first author of the study, designed and analyzed the results of experiments where people carried out a joint task with iCub, the IIT’s child-sized humanoid robot. They sliced a bar of soap together by using a steel wire, alternately pulled by the person and the robotic partner.
After the activity, researchers verified the integration of the robotic hand into the body schema, quantifying the near hand effect with the Posner cueing task. This test challenges participants to press a key as quickly as possible to indicate on which side of the screen an image appears, while an object placed right next to the screen influences their attention. Data from 30 volunteers showed a specific pattern: participants reacted faster when images appeared next to the robot’s hand, showing that their brains had treated it much like a near hand. Thanks to control experiments, researchers proved that this effect appeared only in those who had sliced the soap with the robot.
The strength of the near hand effect also depended on how the humanoid robot moved. When the robot’s gestures were broad, fluid, and well synchronized with the human ones, the effect was stronger, resulting in a better integration of iCub’s hand into the participant’s body schema. Physical closeness between the robotic hand and the person also played a role: the nearer the robot’s hand was to the participant during the slicing task, the greater the effect.
To assess how participants perceived the robot after working together on the task, researchers gathered information through questionnaires. The results show that the more participants saw iCub as competent and pleasant, the more intense the cognitive effect was. Attributing human-like traits or emotions to iCub further boosted the hand’s integration in the body schema; in other words, partnership and empathy enhanced the cognitive bond with the robot.
The team carried out experiments with a humanoid robot under controlled conditions, paving the way for a deeper understanding of human-machine interactions. Psychological factors will be essential to designing robots able to adapt to human stimuli and able to provide a more intuitive and effective robotic experience. These are crucial features for application of robotics in motor rehabilitation, virtual reality, and assistive technologies.
The research is part of the ERC-funded wHiSPER project, coordinated by IIT’s CONTACT (COgNiTive Architecture for Collaborative Technologies) unit.
Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,
Collaborating with a robot biases human spatial attention by Giulia Scorza Azzarà, Joshua Zonca, Francesco Rea, Joo-Hyun Song, Alessandra Sciutti. iScience Volume 28, Issue 7, 18 July 2025, 112791 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.112791 Available online 2 June 2025, Version of Record 18 June 2025 Under a Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0 Attribution 4.0 International Deed
This paper is open access.
This business of a robot becoming an extension of your body, i.e., becoming part of you, is reminiscent of some issues brought up in my October 21, 2025 posting “Copyright, artificial intelligence, and thoughts about cyborgs,” such as, N. Katherine Hayles’s assemblages and, more specifically, the issues brought up in the section titled, “Symbiosis and your implant.”
Canadian research into relationships with domestic robots
Zhao Zhao’s (assistant professor in Computer Science at the University of Guelph) September 11, 2025 essay for The Conversation highlights results from one of her recently published studies, Note: Links have been removed,
Social companion robots are no longer just science fiction. In classrooms, libraries and homes, these small machines are designed to read stories, play games or offer comfort to children. They promise to support learning and companionship, yet their role in family life often extends beyond their original purpose.
In our recent study of families in Canada and the United States, we found that even after a children’s reading robot “retired” or was no longer in active and regular use, most households chose to keep it — treating it less like a gadget and more like a member of the family.
Luka is a small, owl-shaped reading robot, designed to scan and read picture books aloud, making storytime more engaging for young children.
In 2021, my colleague Rhonda McEwen and I set out to explore how 20 families used Luka. We wanted to study not just how families used Luka initially, but how that relationship was built and maintained over time, and what Luka came to mean in the household. Our earlier work laid the foundation for this by showing how families used Luka in daily life and how the bond grew over the first months of use.
When we returned in 2025 to follow up with 19 of those families, we were surprised by what we found. Eighteen households had chosen to keep Luka, even though its reading function was no longer useful to their now-older children. The robot lingered not because it worked better than before, but because it had become meaningful.
A deep, emotional connection
Children often spoke about Luka in affectionate, human-like terms. One called it “my little brother.” Another described it as their “only pet.” These weren’t just throwaway remarks — they reflected the deep emotional place the robot had taken in their everyday lives.
Because Luka had been present during important family rituals like bedtime reading, children remembered it as a companion.
Parents shared similar feelings. Several explained that Luka felt like “part of our history.” For them, the robot had become a symbol of their children’s early years, something they could not imagine discarding. One family even held a small “retirement ceremony” before passing Luka on to a younger cousin, acknowledging its role in their household.
Other families found new, practical uses. Luka was repurposed as a music player, a night light or a display item on a bookshelf next to other keepsakes. Parents admitted they continued to charge it because it felt like “taking care of” the robot.
The device had long outlived its original purpose, yet families found ways to integrate it into daily routines.
…
Luka the robot. Image by Dr Zhao Zhao, University of Guelph
Zhao also wrote an August 8, 2025 essay about her 2025 followup study on families and their Luka robots for Frontiers Media,
What happens to a social robot after it retires?
Four years ago, we placed a small owl-shaped reading robot named Luka into 20 families’ homes. At the time, the children were preschoolers, just learning to read. Luka’s job was clear: scan the pages of physical picture books and read them aloud, helping children build early literacy skills.
That was in 2021. In 2025, we went back — not expecting to find much. The children had grown. The reading level was no longer age-appropriate. Surely, Luka’s work was done.
Instead, we found something extraordinary.
18 of 19 families still had their robot. Many were still charging it. A few used it as a music player. Some simply left it on a shelf—next to baby books and keepsakes—its eyes still glowing gently. Luka had stayed.
…
As more families bring AI-powered companions into their homes, we’ll need to better understand not only how they’re used — but how they’re remembered.
Because sometimes, the robot stays.
For the curious, here’s a link to and a citation for the 2025 followup study,
The robot that stayed: understanding how children and families engage with a retired social robot by Zhao Zhao, Rhonda McEwen. Front. Robot. AI, 07 August 2025 Sec. Human-Robot Interaction Volume 12 – 2025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2025.1628089
This paper is open access.
Where does this leave us?
Trying to distinguish between robots and artificial intelligence (AI) can mean wading into murky waters. Not all robots have (AI) and not all AI is embodied in a robot and cyborgs add more complexity.
N. Katherine Hayles’ 2025 book “Bacteria to AI; Human Futures with our Nonhuman Symbionts” mentioned in my October 21, 2025 posting “Copyright, artificial intelligence, and thoughts about cyborgs” does not make a distinction, which may or may not be important. We just don’t know. It seems we are in the process of redefining our relationships to the life and the objects around us as we redefine what it means to be a person.