Robotic Pet or Soft Toy? An Autoethnographic Study of Living with MetaCat in the Home

Lifelike robotic cats, covered in soft fur and sensor-embedded, are now commercially available and being targeted at home settings. Typically, they are designed to respond to human touch and voice with pet-like behaviours such as purring, meowing and tail wagging. This ambivalence between pet-like form and robotic features raises questions about how they will integrate into home life. Will family members treat them like pets, toys or something else? Research has focused on their use for health and aged care but less so on everyday use in families. We conducted an autoethnography combined with observations in which nine researcher-participants with diverse backgrounds, ages and life settings spent up to ten days each with a robot cat called MetaCat. Our findings elicited surprising, sometimes contradictory experiences and feelings. We report on where MetaCat was placed in the home and the interactions it triggered. We discuss benefits, tensions and design implications when developing pet-like versus robot-like products.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
Published
2026-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3834770
Primary Topic
Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Robotic Pet or Soft Toy? An Autoethnographic Study of Living with MetaCat in the Home

Jeni Paay, Sonja Pedell, Lan An, Diego Muñoz et al.
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
Social Robot Interaction and HRI
article

Robotic Pet or Soft Toy? An Autoethnographic Study of Living with MetaCat in the Home

Jeni Paay, Sonja Pedell, Lan An, Diego Muñoz, Yvonne Rogers, Hilary E. Davis, Esther Wilding, LEON S. STERLING, Alison de Kruiff
article en

Abstract

Lifelike robotic cats, covered in soft fur and sensor-embedded, are now commercially available and being targeted at home settings. Typically, they are designed to respond to human touch and voice with pet-like behaviours such as purring, meowing and tail wagging. This ambivalence between pet-like form and robotic features raises questions about how they will integrate into home life. Will family members treat them like pets, toys or something else? Research has focused on their use for health and aged care but less so on everyday use in families. We conducted an autoethnography combined with observations in which nine researcher-participants with diverse backgrounds, ages and life settings spent up to ten days each with a robot cat called MetaCat. Our findings elicited surprising, sometimes contradictory experiences and feelings. We report on where MetaCat was placed in the home and the interactions it triggered. We discuss benefits, tensions and design implications when developing pet-like versus robot-like products.

ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
Centre for Social Impact (AU), University College London (GB), Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Social Robot Interaction and HRI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Robotic Pet or Soft Toy? An Autoethnographic Study of Living with MetaCat in the Home — Jeni Paay, Sonja Pedell, et al. · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS