Cited by 176Face Recognition and PerceptionSocial Robot Interaction and HRIAesthetic Perception and Analysis

The human likeness dimension of the “uncanny valley hypothesis”: behavioral and functional MRI findings

Open access
Cheetham, Marcus·2011·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Abstract

The uncanny valley hypothesis (Mori, 1970) predicts differential experience of negative and positive affect as a function of human likeness. Affective experience of humanlike robots and computer-generated characters (avatars) dominates "uncanny" research, but findings are inconsistent. Importantly, it is unknown how objects are actually perceived along the hypothesis' dimension of human likeness (DOH), defined in terms of human physical similarity. To examine whether the DOH can also be defined in terms of effects of categorical perception (CP), stimuli from morph continua with controlled differences in physical human likeness between avatar and human faces as endpoints were presented. Two behavioral studies found a sharp category boundary along the DOH and enhanced visual discrimination (i.e., CP) of fine-grained differences between pairs of faces at the category boundary. Discrimination was better for face pairs presenting category change in the human-to-avatar than avatar-to-human direction along the DOH. To investigate brain representation of physical change and category change along the DOH, an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study used the same stimuli in a pair-repetition priming paradigm. Bilateral mid-fusiform areas and a different right mid-fusiform area were sensitive to physical change within the human and avatar categories, respectively, whereas entirely different regions were sensitive to the human-to-avatar (caudate head, putamen, thalamus, red nucleus) and avatar-to-human (hippocampus, amygdala, mid-insula) direction of category change. These findings show that Mori's DOH definition does not reflect subjective perception of human likeness and suggest that future "uncanny" studies consider CP and the DOH's category structure in guiding experience of non-human objects.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00126

Cites

109 of 113 references verified3 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bauer H. H. Neumann M. (2005). “Investigating the Effects of Avatars as Virtual Representatives in Electronic Commerce,” in Proceedings of the Australian-New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC), Perth, 18
  2. Brenton H. Gillies M. Ballin D. Chatting D. (2008). The uncanny valley: does it exist? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human-Animated Characters Interaction, HCI 2005:The Bigger Picture, Edinburgh
  3. Hanson D. (2006). Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 Long Symposium: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, Vancouver
  4. Harnad S. R. (1987). “Introduction: psychological and cognitive aspects of categorical perception: a critical overview,” in Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition, ed. Harnad S. (New York: Cambridge University Press), 1– 25
  5. Ramey C. H. (2005). The uncanny valley of similarities concerning abortion, baldness, heaps of sand, and humanlike robots. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of Views of the Uncanny Valley Workshop: IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Tsukuba

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheetham, M.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Cheetham, Marcus
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2011
Volume
5
Pages
126-126
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032460447
Cited by
176
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
European Commission (27731)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
Keywords
human-likeness, categorical perception, face perception, human avatars, physical similarity, category boundaries, fusiform gyrus, amygdala, hippocampus, emotional experience

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