Cited by 107Social Robot Interaction and HRIVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsHuman Motion and Animation

Empirical evaluation of the uncanny valley hypothesis fails to confirm the predicted effect of motion

Open access
Piwek, Lukasz, McKay, Lawrie S., Pollick, Frank E.·2014·Cognition

Abstract

The uncanny valley hypothesis states that the acceptability of an artificial character will not increase linearly in relation to its likeness to human form. Instead, after an initial rise in acceptability there will be a pronounced decrease when the character is similar, but not identical to human form (Mori, 1970/2012). Moreover, it has been claimed but never directly tested that movement would accentuate this dip and make moving characters less acceptable. We used a number of full-body animated computer characters along with a parametrically defined motion set to examine the effect of motion quality on the uncanny valley. We found that improving the motion quality systematically improved the acceptability of the characters. In particular, the character classified in the deepest location of the uncanny valley became more acceptable when it was animated. Our results showed that although an uncanny valley was found for static characters, the deepening of the valley with motion, originally predicted by Mori (1970/2012), was not obtained.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.001

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Piwek, L., McKay, L. S., & Pollick, F. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NL)
Corresponding author
Pollick, Frank E.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
130
Issue
3
Pages
271-277
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080595165
Cited by
106
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KNAW research portal (Royal Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW)) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KNAW Research Portal (The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Human Motion and Animation
Keywords
uncanny valley, movement quality, human-likeness, computer animation, human-robot interaction, anthropomorphism
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Female, Humans, Male, Motion Perception, Motion Pictures, Robotics, Social Perception, User-Computer Interface, Young Adult

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