Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
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.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
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
Mori, M. 1970. The uncanny valley. Energy 7 (4): 33–35.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Gray, K., and D. Wegner. 2012. Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125 (1): 125–130. CrossRef
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
Moore, R.K. 2012. A bayesian explanation of the ‘Uncanny valley’ effect and related psychological phenomena. Scientific Reports 2.
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.
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
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
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.
Mori, M., K.F. MacDorman, and N. Kageki. 2012. The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 19 (2): 98–100. CrossRef
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
Misselhorn, C. 2009. Empathy with inanimate objects and the uncanny valley. Minds and Machines 19 (3): 345–359. CrossRef
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Zajonc, R.B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 (2p2): 1. CrossRef
Dijksterhuis, A., and P.K. Smith. 2002. Affective habituation: Subliminal exposure to extreme stimuli decreases their extremity. Emotion 2 (3): 203. CrossRef
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
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
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
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
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
Reber, R., P. Winkielman, and N. Schwarz. 1998. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science 9 (1): 45–48. CrossRef
Lee, A.Y. 2001. The mere exposure effect: An uncertainty reduction explanation revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (10): 1255–1266. CrossRef
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
Denrell, J. 2005. Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review 112 (4): 951–978. CrossRef
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
Bornstein, R.F. 1989. Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin 106 (2): 265–289. CrossRef
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
Smith, E.R., and D.M. Mackie. 2007. Social psychology, 3rd ed, Jan. New York: Psychology Press.
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.
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
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
Admoni, H., and B. Scassellati. 2012. A multi-category theory of intention. In Proceedings of COGSCI 2012, 1266–1271, Sapporo, Japan.
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
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.
Haslam, N. 2006. Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10 (3): 252–264. CrossRef
Haslam, N., B. Bastian, S. Laham, and S. Loughnan. 2012. Humanness, dehumanization, and moral psychology.
Sriram, N., and A.G. Greenwald. 2009. The brief implicit association test. Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) 56 (4): 283–294. CrossRef
Ishiguro, H. 2006. Android science: Conscious and subconscious recognition. Connection Science 18 (4): 319–332. CrossRef
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
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
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
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw.
Wheeler, B. 2010. lmPerm: Permutation tests for linear models. R package version 1.1-2.
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
- Persistence of the Uncanny Valley
Jakub A. Złotowski
Dylan F. Glas
- Springer Singapore
- Chapter 10