The uncanny valley does not interfere with level-1 visual perspective taking
Open accessAbstract
When a computer-animated human character looks eerily realistic, viewers report a loss of empathy; they have difficulty taking the character's perspective. To explain this perspective-taking impairment, known as the uncanny valley, a novel theory is proposed: The more human or less eerie a character looks, the more it interferes with level 1 visual perspective taking when the character's perspective differs from that of the human observer (e.g., because the character competitively activates shared circuits in the observer's brain). The proposed theory is evaluated in three experiments involving a dot-counting task in which participants either assumed or ignored the perspective of characters varying in their human photorealism and eeriness. Although response times and error rates were lower when the number of dots faced by the observer and character were the same (congruent condition) than when they were different (incongruent condition), no consistent pattern emerged between the human photorealism or eeriness of the characters and participants' response times and error rates. Thus, the proposed theory is unsupported for level 1 visual perspective taking. As the effects of the uncanny valley on empathy have not previously been investigated systematically, these results provide evidence to eliminate one possible explanation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Ho and MacDorman (2010) scale has already been applied in at least two studies.
“The scale has already been applied in at least two studies (Mitchell et al., 2011; MacDorman et al., 2013).”
From A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness (2015) · cites this paper as MacDorman et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 37
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Hatfield E Cacioppo JT Rapson RL Emotional contagion 1993 Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press
- Mori M The uncanny valley (K. F. MacDorman & Norri Kageki, Trans.) IEEE Robotics and Automation 1970/2012 19 2 98 100 Original work published 1970
- Authors
- MacDorman, K. F., Srinivas, P., & Patel, H.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
- Corresponding author
- MacDorman, Karl F.
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1671-1685
- ISSN
- 0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4160743
- OpenAlex
- W1968290862
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 6.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM066402)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Keywords
- uncanny valley, visual perspective taking, eeriness, empathy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review