Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Development of an Android System Integrated with Sensor Networks Read chapter Read first chapter

2018 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

10. Persistence of the Uncanny Valley

Authors : Jakub A. Złotowski, Hidenobu Sumioka, Shuichi Nishio, Dylan F. Glas, Christoph Bartneck, Hiroshi Ishiguro

Published in: Geminoid Studies

Publisher: Springer Singapore

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In recent years, the uncanny valley theory has been heavily investigated by researchers from various fields. However, the videos and images used in these studies do not permit any human interaction with the uncanny objects. Therefore, in the field of human–robot interaction, it is still unclear what impact, if any, an uncanny-looking robot will have in the context of an interaction. In this paper, we describe an exploratory empirical study using a live interaction paradigm that involves repeated interactions with robots that differ in embodiment and their attitude toward humans. We find that both components of uncanniness investigated here (likeability and eeriness) can be affected by an interaction with a robot. The likeability of a robot is mainly affected by its attitude, and this effect is especially prominent for a machinelike robot. Merely repeating interactions is sufficient to reduce the degree of eeriness, irrespective of a robot’s embodiment. As a result, we urge other researchers to investigate the uncanny valley theory in studies that involve actual human–robot interactions in order to fully understand the changing nature of this phenomenon.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Evaluation of Robot Appearance Using a Brain Science Technique
next chapter Can a Teleoperated Android Represent Personal Presence?—A Case Study with Children
Literature
1.
Złotowski, J.A., H. Sumioka, S. Nishio, D.F. Glas, C. Bartneck, and H. Ishiguro. 2015. Persistence of the uncanny valley: The influence of repeated interactions and a robot’s attitude on its perception. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 883.CrossRef
2.
Mori, M. 1970. The uncanny valley. Energy 7 (4): 33–35.
3.
Blow, M., K. Dautenhahn, A. Appleby, C. Nehaniv, and D. Lee. 2006. Perception of robot smiles and dimensions for human-robot interaction design. In The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006, 469–474.
4.
Hanson, D. 2006. Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. In Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium: Toward social mechanisms of android science, 39–42.
5.
MacDorman, K.F. 2006. Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity, and eeriness: An exploration of the uncanny valley. In ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium: Toward social mechanisms of android science, 26–29.
6.
McDonnell, R., M. Breidt, and H.H. Bälthoff. 2012. Render me real?: Investigating the effect of render style on the perception of animated virtual humans. ACM Transactions on Graphics 31 (4): 91:1–91:11.CrossRef
7.
MacDorman, K.F., R.D. Green, C.-C. Ho, and C.T. Koch. 2009. Too real for comfort? uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior 25 (3): 695–710.CrossRef
8.
Seyama, J., and R.S. Nagayama. 2007. The uncanny valley: Effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 16 (4): 337–351.CrossRef
9.
Mitchell, W.J., K.A. Szerszen, A.S. Lu, P.W. Schermerhorn, M. Scheutz, and K.F. MacDorman. 2011. A mismatch in the human realism of face and voice produces an uncanny valley. i-Perception 2 (1): 10–12.CrossRef
10.
Saygin, A.P., T. Chaminade, H. Ishiguro, J. Driver, and C. Frith. 2012. The thing that should not be: Predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 7 (4): 413–422.CrossRef
11.
Piwek, L., L.S. McKay, and F.E. Pollick. 2014. Empirical evaluation of the uncanny valley hypothesis fails to confirm the predicted effect of motion. Cognition 130 (3): 271–277.CrossRef
12.
Steckenfinger, S.A., and A.A. Ghazanfar. 2009. Monkey visual behavior falls into the uncanny valley. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (43): 18362–18366.CrossRef
13.
MacDorman, K.F., P. Srinivas, and H. Patel. 2013. The uncanny valley does not interfere with level 1 visual perspective taking. Computers in Human Behavior 29 (4): 16711685.CrossRef
14.
Gray, K., and D. Wegner. 2012. Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125 (1): 125–130.CrossRef
15.
MacDorman, K.F., and H. Ishiguro. 2006. The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies 7 (3): 297–337.CrossRef
16.
Moore, R.K. 2012. A bayesian explanation of the ‘Uncanny valley’ effect and related psychological phenomena. Scientific Reports 2.
17.
Cheetham, M., P. Suter, and L. Jancke. 2014. Perceptual discrimination difficulty and familiarity in the uncanny valley: More like a happy valley. Frontiers in Psychology 5.
18.
Looser, C.E., and T. Wheatley. 2010. The tipping point of animacy how, when, and where we perceive life in a face. Psychological Science 21 (12): 1854–1862.CrossRef
19.
Poliakoff, E., N. Beach, R. Best, T. Howard, and E. Gowen. 2013. Can looking at a hand make your skin crawl? peering into the uncanny valley for hands. Perception 42 (9): 998–1000.CrossRef
20.
Bartneck, C., T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita. 2009. My robotic doppelganger—A critical look at the uncanny valley theory. In 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN2009, 269–276. IEEE.
21.
Mori, M., K.F. MacDorman, and N. Kageki. 2012. The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 19 (2): 98–100.CrossRef
22.
Ho, C., and K. MacDorman. 2010. Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the godspeed indices. Computers in Human Behavior 26 (6): 1508–1518.CrossRef
23.
Misselhorn, C. 2009. Empathy with inanimate objects and the uncanny valley. Minds and Machines 19 (3): 345–359.CrossRef
24.
Cheetham, M., P. Suter, and L. Jancke. 2011. The human likeness dimension of the “Uncanny valley hypothesis”: Behavioral and functional MRI findings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5.
25.
Bartneck, C., T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita. 2007. Is the uncanny valley an uncanny cliff? In Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 368–373, Jeju, Republic of Korea.
26.
Kiesler, S., A. Powers, S.R. Fussell, and C. Torrey. 2008. Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Social Cognition 26 (2): 169–181.CrossRef
27.
Fussell, S.R., S. Kiesler, L.D. Setlock, and V. Yew. 2008. How people anthropomorphize robots. In HRI 2008—Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction: Living with robots, 145–152, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
28.
Becker-Asano, C., K. Ogawa, S. Nishio, and H. Ishiguro. 2010. Exploring the uncanny valley with geminoid HI-1 in a real-world application. In Proceedings of the IADIS international conference on interfaces and human computer interaction 2010, IHCI, proceedings of the IADIS international conference on game and entertainment technologies 2010, part of the MCCSIS 2010, 121–128, Freiburg, Germany.
29.
von der Pütten, A.M., N.C. Krämer, C. Becker-Asano, and H. Ishiguro. 2011. An android in the field. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction, HRI ’11, 283–284, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
30.
 Dill, V., L.M. Flach, R. Hocevar, C. Lykawka, S.R. Musse, and M.S. Pinho. 2012. Evaluation of the uncanny valley in CG characters. In 12th international conference on intelligent virtual agents, IVA 2012, September 12, 2012–September 14, 2012, vol. 7502 LNAI, 511–513. Springer.CrossRef
31.
Zajonc, R.B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 (2p2): 1.CrossRef
32.
Dijksterhuis, A., and P.K. Smith. 2002. Affective habituation: Subliminal exposure to extreme stimuli decreases their extremity. Emotion 2 (3): 203.CrossRef
33.
Ebbesen, E.B., G.L. Kjos, and V.J. Konečni. 1976. Spatial ecology: Its effects on the choice of friends and enemies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12 (6): 505–518.CrossRef
34.
Perlman, D., and S. Oskamp. 1971. The effects of picture content and exposure frequency on evaluations of negroes and whites. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 7 (5): 503–514.CrossRef
35.
Brockner, J., and W.C. Swap. 1976. Effects of repeated exposure and attitudinal similarity on self-disclosure and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (5): 531–540.CrossRef
36.
Brickman, P., P. Meyer, and S. Fredd. 1975. Effects of varying exposure to another person with familiar or unfamiliar thought processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11 (3): 261–270.CrossRef
37.
Bornstein, R.F., and P.R. D’Agostino. 1994. The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Social Cognition 12 (2): 103–128.CrossRef
38.
Reber, R., P. Winkielman, and N. Schwarz. 1998. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science 9 (1): 45–48.CrossRef
39.
Lee, A.Y. 2001. The mere exposure effect: An uncertainty reduction explanation revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (10): 1255–1266.CrossRef
40.
Clark, L.A., and D. Watson. 1988. Mood and the mundane: Relations between daily life events and self-reported mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (2): 296–308.CrossRef
41.
Denrell, J. 2005. Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review 112 (4): 951–978.CrossRef
42.
Reis, H.T., M.R. Maniaci, P.A. Caprariello, P.W. Eastwick, and E.J. Finkel. 2011. Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101 (3): 557–570.CrossRef
43.
Bornstein, R.F. 1989. Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin 106 (2): 265–289.CrossRef
44.
Norton, M.I., J.H. Frost, and D. Ariely. 2007. Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (1): 97–105.CrossRef
45.
Smith, E.R., and D.M. Mackie. 2007. Social psychology, 3rd ed, Jan. New York: Psychology Press.
46.
 Goetz, J., S. Kiesler, and A. Powers. 2003. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 55–60.
47.
De Houwer, J., S. Teige-Mocigemba, A. Spruyt, and A. Moors. 2009. Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin 135 (3): 347–368.CrossRef
48.
Steffens, M.C., and S. Schulze. 2006. König. Predicting spontaneous big five behavior with implicit association tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 22 (1): 13–20.CrossRef
49.
Admoni, H., and B. Scassellati. 2012. A multi-category theory of intention. In Proceedings of COGSCI 2012, 1266–1271, Sapporo, Japan.
50.
Gawronski, B. 2002. What does the implicit association test measure? a test of the convergent and discriminant validity of prejudice-related IATs. Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) 49 (3): 171–180.CrossRef
51.
Złotowski, J., E. Strasser, and C. Bartneck. 2014. Dimensions of anthropomorphism: From humanness to humanlikeness. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, HRI ’14, 66–73, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
52.
Haslam, N. 2006. Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10 (3): 252–264.CrossRef
53.
 Haslam, N., B. Bastian, S. Laham, and S. Loughnan. 2012. Humanness, dehumanization, and moral psychology.
54.
Sriram, N., and A.G. Greenwald. 2009. The brief implicit association test. Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) 56 (4): 283–294.CrossRef
55.
Ishiguro, H. 2006. Android science: Conscious and subconscious recognition. Connection Science 18 (4): 319–332.CrossRef
56.
Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., and N.C. Krämer. 2014. How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses. Computers in Human Behavior 36: 422–439.CrossRef
57.
Bartneck, C., D. Kulic, E. Croft, and S. Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1 (1): 71–81.CrossRef
58.
Haslam, N., S. Loughnan, Y. Kashima, and P. Bain. 2009. Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology 19 (1): 55–85.CrossRef
59.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw.
60.
Wheeler, B. 2010. lmPerm: Permutation tests for linear models. R package version 1.1-2.
61.
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Metadata
Title
Persistence of the Uncanny Valley
Authors
Jakub A. Złotowski
Hidenobu Sumioka
Shuichi Nishio
Dylan F. Glas
Christoph Bartneck
Hiroshi Ishiguro
Copyright Year
2018
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Book
Geminoid Studies

Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8701-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-10-8702-8

Copyright Year: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8702-8_10