Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems

Editor-in-Chief: Roterman-Konieczna , Irena

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 0.43

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.160
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.223

Online
ISSN
1896-530X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Human-likeness assessment for the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis

Paweł Łupkowski
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Logic and Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Reasoning Research Group, Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. H. Wieniawskiego 1, Poznań, Poland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Marek Rybka
  • Institute of Psychology, Reasoning Research Group, Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. H. Wieniawskiego 1, Poznań, Poland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Dagmara Dziedzic
  • Department of Logic and Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. H. Wieniawskiego 1, Poznań, Poland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Wojciech Włodarczyk
  • Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. H. Wieniawskiego 1, Poznań, Poland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-06-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bams-2017-0008

Abstract

The Uncanny Valley Hypothesis (UVH, proposed in the 1970s) suggests that looking at or interacting with almost human-like artificial characters would trigger eeriness or discomfort. We studied how well subjects can assess degrees of human likeness for computer-generated characters. We conducted two studies, where subjects were asked to assess human likeness of given computer-generated models (Study 1) and to point the most typical model for a given category (Study 2). The results suggest that evaluation of the way human likeness is assessed should be an internal part of UVH research.

Keywords: categorisation; computer-generated models; human likeness; Uncanny Valley Hypothesis

References

  • 1.

    Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 2012;19:98–100. (Original work published in 1970 in Japaneese).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Kätsyri J, Förger K, Mäkäräinen M, Takala T. A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Front Psychol 2015;6:390.Web of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Ueyama Y. A bayesian model of the uncanny valley effect for explaining the effects of therapeutic robots in autism spectrum disorder. PLoS One 2015;10:e0138642.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    MacDorman KF, Green RD, Ho C-C, Koch CT. Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Comput Hum Behav 2009;25:695–710.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Geller T. Overcoming the uncanny valley. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 2008;28:11–7.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Gee F, Browne WN, Kawamura K. Uncanny valley revisited. In: Mitch Wilkes, editor. Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on IEEE, Nashville, TN, USA, 2005:151–7. Doi: .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Piwek L, McKay LS, Pollick FE. Empirical evaluation of the uncanny valley hypothesis fails to confirm the predicted effect of motion. Cognition 2014;130:271–7.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Dill V, Flach LM, Hocevar R, Lykawka C, Musse SR, Pinho MS. Evaluation of the Uncanny Valley in CG characters. In: Yukiko N, Neff M, Paiva A, Walker M, editors. International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Berlin: Springer, 2012:511–3.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed: 20 Mar 2017.Google Scholar

  • 10.

    Gamer M, Lemon J, Singh IF. irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. Accessed: 20 Mar 2017, R package version 0.84, 2012.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37:360–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2012;8:23–34.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-03-27

Accepted: 2017-05-23

Published Online: 2017-06-16

Published in Print: 2017-09-26


Author contributions: The authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems, Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 125–131, ISSN (Online) 1896-530X, ISSN (Print) 1895-9091, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bams-2017-0008.

Export Citation

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in