Japan unveils humanoid robot that laughs and smiles (w/ Video)

Apr 03, 2010
A model (R) touches the face of a humanoid robot called "Geminoid-F" (L) at a press conference in Osaka. Japanese researchers said Saturday they have developed a humanoid robot that can laugh and smile as it mimics a person's facial expressions.

Japanese researchers said Saturday they have developed a humanoid robot that can laugh and smile as it mimics a person's facial expressions.

The robot, Geminoid TMF, can move its rubber facial skin to imitate a smile, a laugh showing teeth, and a grim look with furrowed brows, by receiving electric signals from the person it is modelled on.

The researchers demonstrated with a robot made to look exactly like an attractive woman in her 20s with long dark hair. The woman and the robot were dressed in the same clothes - a black skirt and black leather jacket.

The robot smiled and furrowed its brow in almost simultaneous of the woman, whose face was filmed with a video camera which then provided information on her expressions to the robot through electric signals.

"I felt like I had a twin sister," the woman told reporters afterwards.

The developers said they expected the robot to be eventually used in real-life situations, for example in hospitals.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

"We've already got some data showing that the robot gave patients psychological security by nodding and smiling at them, when patients were checked on by doctors," said Satoko Inoue, spokeswoman for Kokoro, one of the two companies involved in the development.

"A new technology always creates some fears and negative opinions," but the researchers wanted to make robots that could express something similar to human emotions, said Hiroshi Ishiguro, a professor at Osaka University who led the research.

Copies of the are expected to be sold for about 10 million yen (110,000 dollars), mainly to robotics research organisations, Ishiguro said, without giving a timeframe.

Explore further: Hitchhiking robot charms its way across Canada

Related Stories

Robot to take starring roles in S.Korea plays

Feb 10, 2010

A South Korean-developed robot that played to acclaim in "Robot Princess and the Seven Dwarfs" is set for more leading theatre roles this year, a scientist said Wednesday.

Korea to sell programmable robot

Aug 21, 2006

South Korean scientists say they plan to begin marketing an advanced robot that can be programmed by personal computers.

Recommended for you

Hitchhiking robot charms its way across Canada

Aug 15, 2014

He has dipped his boots in Lake Superior, crashed a wedding and attended an Aboriginal powwow. A talking, bucket-bodied robot has enthralled Canadians since it departed from Halifax last month on a hitchhiking ...

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2010
So essentially, it's a remote controlled puppet. Hollywood and Disneyland have been making similar puppets for decades. It's commonly called, "animatronics."

http://en.wikiped...atronics
CarolinaScotsman
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2010
@ubavontuba Yes, but it can mimic/display emotions in real time as opposed to pre prgrammed displays.
robvoodoo
4 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2010
Good to see Mr. U's favoured stance of outrage without insight extends beyond the LHC.
zbarlici
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2010
if mr. U is so scared of the LHC then perhaps i could sell him the plans for an underground bunker at a reasonable price?
sciguy59
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2010
Now if they could put the mobility of Asimo with these androids they are making and have self sustained speech no one would know the difference. It shouldn't be too much longer I hope. I guess we better start drafting an Android Bill of Rights.
Rynox77
1 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2010
Our constitution covers certain inalienable god-given rights. It does not cover man-given rights. So yes, our current constitution and bill of rights does not cover the rights of man-created intellect and emotion.
eric_in_chicago
5 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2010
"Hey, Baby... I got a couple pints of oil back at the garage and some back issues of Popular Mechanics. Wanna go back to my place for a little tune-up?"
jgelt
5 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2010
And yet most of us were manufactured by unskilled labor...lol
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2010
@ubavontuba Yes, but it can mimic/display emotions in real time as opposed to pre prgrammed displays.
Sure. The video feedback interface is an interesting control system, but it's still just a control system. It's not substantively different than a puppeteer commanding the expressions, by any other means. It's still just a puppet. That's to say, it's not like the puppet is actually thinking or feeling.
yyz
3 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2010
"...researchers wanted to make robots that could express something similar to human emotions..."

I think they're confusing 'emotions' with facial expressions.
Valentiinro
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2010
"express something"
I think you're confusing the word express with have.
TabulaMentis
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2010
Wait until someone tries to have sex with one of those things and it accidently cuts their ding-a-ling off!
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2010
At least it will be an accident! Some real life women have done it for real!! Whatshername again? Mrs bobbylock or something? Oh Yes Mrs. Bobbit. Or is it a character in the "Lord of the Ring" story?
MorituriMax
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2010
Our constitution covers certain inalienable god-given rights. It does not cover man-given rights. So yes, our current constitution and bill of rights does not cover the rights of man-created intellect and emotion.


Which God, of the thousands man has "made" up, gave you your rights? In essence, since all Gods are man-made, those rights ARE given to you by other men.
tkjtkj
4 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2010
Our constitution covers certain inalienable god-given rights. It does not cover man-given rights. So yes, our current constitution and bill of rights does not cover the rights of man-created intellect and emotion.


ah.. So, we who do not accept any mystical, absurd, and juvenile concept of 'god' have no rights?

And of those who do accept a 'god' (and therefore have rights) which god is it, of the 100,000+ deities anthropologists have listed that have been 'worshiped' since recorded time?

MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2010
man, is it 100,000+? It's almost like a supernatural deity store with 100,000+ deities, "God! There's an app for that."
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2010
There must be a bunch of robot Gods' running around?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2010
Thank God there is no God! Like Churchill said of one of his colleaugues: "There for the grace of God goes God".
Husky
Apr 05, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DozerIAm
not rated yet Apr 05, 2010
Our constitution covers certain inalienable god-given rights. It does not cover man-given rights. So yes, our current constitution and bill of rights does not cover the rights of man-created intellect and emotion.


ah.. So, we who do not accept any mystical, absurd, and juvenile concept of 'god' have no rights?

And of those who do accept a 'god' (and therefore have rights) which god is it, of the 100,000+ deities anthropologists have listed that have been 'worshiped' since recorded time?


Are you suggesting that the only rights that exist are those "granted" by governments? Given the willingness of governments throughout history to revoke rights granted previously (or not grant them in the first place) I would have to consider your worldview truly frightening!

I recommend you replace the term "god-given" with "natural". It'll trigger less of a knee jerk anti-religion reaction and allows looking at the concept of "natural rights" from a reason based perspective.
maxcypher
not rated yet Apr 05, 2010
Has anyone ever seen an article about a new Japanese robot that is specifically male-gendered? I can only remember non-gendered or female-gendered. What's up with that?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
Has anyone ever seen an article about a new Japanese robot that is specifically male-gendered? I can only remember non-gendered or female-gendered. What's up with that?

Maxcypher:
Females are more popular than men when it comes to looks and sex!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
Thank God there is no God! Like Churchill said of one of his colleaugues: "There for the grace of God goes God".

johanfprins:
Have you heard of the Big Bang? No scientist to date has been able to explain where the Big Bang came from! Why is it so difficult for you to believe that a deity could have created the Big Bang instead of it happening by accident?
Grave
not rated yet Apr 06, 2010
the keyword is "believe" its impossible to believe when you think.
those who think don't believe and vice versa
DozerIAm
not rated yet Apr 06, 2010
the keyword is "believe" its impossible to believe when you think.
those who think don't believe and vice versa

That's a bold statement. Bold and incorrect. History is busy with men of science who believed in a higher power, like (in no particular order) Einstein, Planck, Pasteur, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Jefferson, Franklin, and Bacon (not the delicious fatty meat, the father of the scientific method!). There were many others but off the top of my head this is a sufficiently sized list for a refutation. Plus I got to mention Bacon!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
the keyword is "believe" its impossible to believe when you think.
those who think don't believe and vice versa

Grave:
If you know how the Big Bang got started, then there are a whole lot of people waiting to hear your answer!
Quarl
not rated yet Apr 06, 2010
Thank God there is no God! Like Churchill said of one of his colleaugues: "There for the grace of God goes God".

johanfprins:
Have you heard of the Big Bang? No scientist to date has been able to explain where the Big Bang came from! Why is it so difficult for you to believe that a deity could have created the Big Bang instead of it happening by accident?


What deity? Where is it now? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that complex things can happen by accident? How many bacteria do you kill every day? Do you care? Why would a so-called deity?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
Thank God there is no God! Like Churchill said of one of his colleaugues: "There for the grace of God goes God".

johanfprins:
Have you heard of the Big Bang? No scientist to date has been able to explain where the Big Bang came from! Why is it so difficult for you to believe that a deity could have created the Big Bang instead of it happening by accident?


What deity? Where is it now? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that complex things can happen by accident? How many bacteria do you kill every day? Do you care? Why would a so-called deity?

Quarl:
Those are complex questions that every individual has to figure out for themself throughout their lifetime. But the simple question I stated earlier is that no one knows where the Big Bang came from, so how can someone be so sure one way or the other if a deity exist or not.
Grave
not rated yet Apr 06, 2010
the keyword is "believe" its impossible to believe when you think.
those who think don't believe and vice versa

That's a bold statement. Bold and incorrect. History is busy with men of science who believed in a higher power, like (in no particular order) Einstein, Planck, Pasteur, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Jefferson, Franklin, and Bacon (not the delicious fatty meat, the father of the scientific method!). There were many others but off the top of my head this is a sufficiently sized list for a refutation. Plus I got to mention Bacon!


not really bold, its an observation from a logical viewpoint: if you are believing in something, you are not thinking, you are believing.
the act of believing is antithesis to thinking.

and just as a sidenote, scientists who claim/claimed they believe do it because of tradition/upbringing/pc/excuse/peer pressure/fear/etc
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
Grave:
Your theory that a deity does not exist does not nullify those who do believe in a deity.
If you cannot explain where the Big Bang came from with an open mind to a variety of options, then please stop acting like you know everything!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
johanfprins:
Why is it so difficult for you to believe that a deity could have created the Big Bang etc.

It is NOT difficult to believe there is a deity. Neither is it difficult NOT to believe.
It is one of those questions for which you have two possible answers but you cannot directly prove which one is correct. Even in physics you encounter problems like this: For example: "Is there an electric energy-field around a solitary charge?" To test whether there is you have to use another charge: The charge is then not solitary anymore. Thus two possibilities remain: The one which leads to inconsistencies must be rejected. Since the assumption that there is such a field causes infinities which have to be removed by renormalisation (rationalisation) the conclusion is compelling that there is NOT such a field.
The concept of deity leads to rationalisation on both sides: I tend towards deity; but am willing to keep an open mind until He/She gives more information.
Grave
not rated yet Apr 07, 2010
Grave:
Your theory that a deity does not exist does not nullify those who do believe in a deity.
If you cannot explain where the Big Bang came from with an open mind to a variety of options, then please stop acting like you know everything!


you must have read someone elses comment about existence of deities. i was only talking about belief vs thinking.
i usually don't discuss existence of deities because honestly i don't care, from scientific viewpoint its pointless, and philosophical discussions lead nowhere.

those who believe in deities have to prove their existence, because those who think deities don't exist cannot (because you cannot prove something doesn't exist, obviously)

big bang cosmological model leads to circular reasoning, and imo its just a temporary crutch in learning more about universe.
i think explaining existence of universe is currently beyond capability of our understanding, because our way of thinking is bound to dimensions which we can recognize.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
Thank God there is no God! Like Churchill said of one of his colleaugues: "There for the grace of God goes God".

johanfprins:
Your statement did not sound very believing.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
Grave:
You sound like a reasonable person. I think the existence of deities are very scientific just like the existence of humans is very scientific.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2010
Will someone please explain what religion and deities have to do with this robots story?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2010
johanfprins:Your statement did not sound very believing.

I thought it did: Why else would I thank a being who I believe is not there?
DozerIAm
5 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2010
Geez, you guys are STILL going at it with the religion bickering? Folks, this is an article on Fem-bots, for gosh sakes! Lets make some "Austin Powers" or "Westworld" references, maybe another "Futurama" one (thank you "eric_in_chicago" for the earlier one) and call it a day here, ok?
DozerIAm
4 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2010
Here I will start:

[Austin tries to resist to Fembots]
Austin Powers: [muttering] Baseball, cold showers, baseball, cold showers.
[One of the fembots stands over him and opens her legs]
Austin Powers: Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day! Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2010
What attracts my attention to this article is how a beautiful woman is attempting to clone herself.
However, she is doing it backwards. The correct way is to work from the inside out, not from the outside in.
Within fifty years this lady will be able to reach her ultimate goal, or what I assume is her ultimate goal, by being able to upload a copy of her mind into a robot that looks just like her.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2010
I should add that it would be a biological robot that would look just like her inside and out.

P.S.: I hope she gives me a copy also that I can play with.
Grave
not rated yet Apr 09, 2010
so robots will become pretty much just an interface for us, while our consciousness resides in the cyberspace, safely backed up
thats one way to achieve practical immortality :)
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2010
so robots will become pretty much just an interface for us, while our consciousness resides in the cyberspace, safely backed up
thats one way to achieve practical immortality :)

Grave:
Immortality is the ultimate name of the game when it comes to robotics. In the short future hacking into our brains and their backups will be the next game!
Abdul_Abe
not rated yet Apr 10, 2010
Good video plus the good article certainly made this segment amazing.Keep it up!

http://www.bankru...nia.com/
Skepticus
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2010
Religions are defined exactly by faith. No reason, logic, nor mental gymnastics are involved. Dogma and unwavering belielf the only thing required. So easy.Therefore, people,please stop poking at a believer's faith. You'll have better results breaking the quarks apart by physically head-butting them. Personally I believe in this world being created as a pile of s**t My God excrected, and please don't go and try to persuade me that My God doesn't exist.

And, by the way, I like the robot on the right better..:-)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2010
Religions are defined exactly by faith. No reason, logic, nor mental gymnastics are involved. Dogma and unwavering belielf the only thing required. So easy.

You have just defined theoretical physicsfrom 1930 onwards. For example there is the unwavering belief that there is an electric energy-field around a solitary electron without any experimental proof that this is so: To prove this, a test charge has to be used and then one does NOT have a solitary charge anymore. Nonetheless the theoretical physicists believe so solidly that there MUST be such a field that they ignore the fact that mathematics warn them (by generating infinities) that there cannot be such a field. This unwavering belief is then used to substract the infinities from one another to obtain the results they want. They even give Nobel Prizes to those who are able to preach the good faitn that there is such a field and that it can thus be "renormalised". At present believers in God are far more objective!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2010
Here we go with that religion stuff again!!!
I find it very interesting when people make the possible existence of deities over complicated. Why do they do that???
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2010
johanfprins:

I like how you keep pounding away on that electric energy-field around a solitary electron stuff.

I would like to know what your theory is for that controversy. You are definitely on to something, I promise.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010
johanfprins:
I like how you keep pounding away on that electric energy-field around a solitary electron stuff.
I would like to know what your theory is for that controversy. You are definitely on to something, I promise.


I am giving a tentative model in my forthcoming book: In summary: The inertia of a solitary electron requires it to be in stable equilibrium. Stable equilibrim requires the electron to experience a harmonic potential. Thus a solitary electron is the solution of an approppriate wave equation which does not have mass as an input. I found that I can rewtrite the Schroedinger equation in such a manner. The solution is then a wave-intensity which is Gaussian along all radial directions, and this intensity is the mass-energy of the electron. It is interesting that the restoring force of the harmonic potential well appears as an electric-field over a fourth space dimension. For this reason there is no electric-field around the mass of the electron.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010
To proceed: In effect it means that an electron forms a dipole along the fourth dimension: The opposite charge on the other side probably relates to anti-matter. This implies that pro- and anti- became seperated over our three dimensional space along a fourth dimension. When such a dipole flips, we have a positron.
What is even more interesting is that when one solves the same wave equation under the action of a magnetic field, one has to use cylindrical coordinates: the energy of the wave increases for all values of the angle except for it being 0 or pi. Thus the wave can lose this energy by aligning its own magnetic moment either parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetic-field. Spin alignment thus has an energy-cause. What it also implies is that the applied magnetic-field causes the fourth dimension to re-align so that the electron maintains the lowest energy. Magnetic field warping space-time??
It is still speculative, but it does explain aspects not explained before.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2010
johanfprins:

You have a very solid theory.
It is apparent that you have an extensive education in physics.
It may be difficult to write a book on that subject alone, but do not listen to me in that respect.
Releasing a paper on that particular subject in the physics arena, a journal or something, may bring you a lot of attention and help to advance the subject.
I personally have taken those kinds of ideas in general to a higher level over a broader scale in how they may relate to robotics and immortality without getting into all of the scientific details like you have.
Keep up the good work and release the idea ASAP.
Do not worry about making mistakes. Albert Einstein made a lot of minor mistakes.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2010
TabulaMentis
Thank you for your positive response. You cannot imagine how much it helps me after 10 years of rejection. Before I discovered an electron phase which can be interpreted to be superconductor at room temperature I had a good publishing record and citation index in the field of diamond physics.
Since then I have been consistently blocked from publishing anything. It seems that my name alone is enough for an editor to reject a manuscript. These editors include Nobel Prize winners" e.g. Franck Wlczek and Gerhardus 't Hoofd. It seems that any result which challenges quantum field theory in any manner is considered a heresy.
Thus I have been forced to turn to those people who are not present day theoretical physicists and might still have some common sense left. That is why I have to write a book. Excerpts of this book are on my website: My tradename is cathodixx.
I am greatly interested to hear more about your ideas on robotics and immortality.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2010
johanfprins:
I saw your Web site and know exactly what you mean.
I will contact you within a year or less.
It will be greatly beneficial for both you and me!!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2010
johanfprins:
I saw your Web site and know exactly what you mean.
I will contact you within a year or less.
It will be greatly beneficial for both you and me!!!

I am looking forward to meeting up with you!!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2010
johanfprins:

Physorg.com has a new article dated April, 12, 2010 titled "New material is a breakthrough in magnetism."

The article can be found at the following link: http://www.physor...257.html

I am curious what your take would be on that article?

If you can add anything to the article, then I would enjoy reading about it.

I think a lot of people would like to hear what you have to say about the subject.

I will look for any response you may possibly have in the blog for that particular article.

P.S.: Hopefully you will not have to wait as long as Albert Einstein to find out that your biggest blunder was one of your biggest successes.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2010
I will look for any response you may possibly have in the blog for that particular article.

Done as requested!