Uncanny but not confusing: multisite study of perceptual category confusion in the Uncanny Valley

Maya B. Mathur (Corresponding author), David B. Reichling, Francesca Lunardini, Alice Geminiani, Alberto Antonietti, Peter A.M. Ruijten, Carmel A. Levitan, Gideon Nave, Dylan Manfredi, Brandy Bessette-Symons, Attila Szuts, Balazs Aczel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Android robots that resemble humans closely, but not perfectly, can provoke negative feelings of dislike and eeriness in humans (the “Uncanny Valley” effect). We investigated whether category confusion between the perceptual categories of “robot” and “human” contributes to Uncanny Valley aversion. Using a novel, validated corpus of 182 images of real robot and human faces, we precisely estimated the shape of the Uncanny Valley and the location of the perceived robot/human boundary. To implicitly measure confusion, we tracked 358 participants’ mouse trajectories as they categorized the faces. We observed a clear Uncanny Valley, though with some interesting differences from standard theoretical predictions; the initial apex of likability for highly mechanical robots indicated that these robots were still moderately dislikable, and the Uncanny Valley itself was positioned closer to the mechanical than to the human-like end of the spectrum. We also observed a pattern of categorization suggesting that humans do perceive a categorical robot/human boundary. Yet in contrast to predictions of the category confusion mechanism hypothesis, the locations of the Uncanny Valley and of the category boundary did not coincide, and mediation analyses further failed to support a mechanistic role of category confusion. These results suggest category confusion does not explain the Uncanny Valley effect.

LanguageEnglish
Pages21-30
Number of pages10
JournalComputers in Human Behavior
Volume103
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Feb 2020

Fingerprint

Confusion
Robots
Robot
Trajectories
Emotions

Keywords

  • Categorical perception
  • Human-robot interaction
  • Psychology
  • Social interaction
  • Uncanny valley

Cite this

Mathur, M. B., Reichling, D. B., Lunardini, F., Geminiani, A., Antonietti, A., Ruijten, P. A. M., ... Aczel, B. (2020). Uncanny but not confusing: multisite study of perceptual category confusion in the Uncanny Valley. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 21-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.029
Mathur, Maya B. ; Reichling, David B. ; Lunardini, Francesca ; Geminiani, Alice ; Antonietti, Alberto ; Ruijten, Peter A.M. ; Levitan, Carmel A. ; Nave, Gideon ; Manfredi, Dylan ; Bessette-Symons, Brandy ; Szuts, Attila ; Aczel, Balazs. / Uncanny but not confusing : multisite study of perceptual category confusion in the Uncanny Valley. In: Computers in Human Behavior. 2020 ; Vol. 103. pp. 21-30
@article{973e8fa5596a4dbb860704e13d305061,
title = "Uncanny but not confusing: multisite study of perceptual category confusion in the Uncanny Valley",
abstract = "Android robots that resemble humans closely, but not perfectly, can provoke negative feelings of dislike and eeriness in humans (the “Uncanny Valley” effect). We investigated whether category confusion between the perceptual categories of “robot” and “human” contributes to Uncanny Valley aversion. Using a novel, validated corpus of 182 images of real robot and human faces, we precisely estimated the shape of the Uncanny Valley and the location of the perceived robot/human boundary. To implicitly measure confusion, we tracked 358 participants’ mouse trajectories as they categorized the faces. We observed a clear Uncanny Valley, though with some interesting differences from standard theoretical predictions; the initial apex of likability for highly mechanical robots indicated that these robots were still moderately dislikable, and the Uncanny Valley itself was positioned closer to the mechanical than to the human-like end of the spectrum. We also observed a pattern of categorization suggesting that humans do perceive a categorical robot/human boundary. Yet in contrast to predictions of the category confusion mechanism hypothesis, the locations of the Uncanny Valley and of the category boundary did not coincide, and mediation analyses further failed to support a mechanistic role of category confusion. These results suggest category confusion does not explain the Uncanny Valley effect.",
keywords = "Categorical perception, Human-robot interaction, Psychology, Social interaction, Uncanny valley",
author = "Mathur, {Maya B.} and Reichling, {David B.} and Francesca Lunardini and Alice Geminiani and Alberto Antonietti and Ruijten, {Peter A.M.} and Levitan, {Carmel A.} and Gideon Nave and Dylan Manfredi and Brandy Bessette-Symons and Attila Szuts and Balazs Aczel",
year = "2020",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.029",
language = "English",
volume = "103",
pages = "21--30",
journal = "Computers in Human Behavior",
issn = "0747-5632",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Mathur, MB, Reichling, DB, Lunardini, F, Geminiani, A, Antonietti, A, Ruijten, PAM, Levitan, CA, Nave, G, Manfredi, D, Bessette-Symons, B, Szuts, A & Aczel, B 2020, 'Uncanny but not confusing: multisite study of perceptual category confusion in the Uncanny Valley' Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 103, pp. 21-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.029

Uncanny but not confusing : multisite study of perceptual category confusion in the Uncanny Valley. / Mathur, Maya B. (Corresponding author); Reichling, David B.; Lunardini, Francesca; Geminiani, Alice; Antonietti, Alberto; Ruijten, Peter A.M.; Levitan, Carmel A.; Nave, Gideon; Manfredi, Dylan; Bessette-Symons, Brandy; Szuts, Attila; Aczel, Balazs.

In: Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 103, 01.02.2020, p. 21-30.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Uncanny but not confusing

T2 - Computers in Human Behavior

AU - Mathur,Maya B.

AU - Reichling,David B.

AU - Lunardini,Francesca

AU - Geminiani,Alice

AU - Antonietti,Alberto

AU - Ruijten,Peter A.M.

AU - Levitan,Carmel A.

AU - Nave,Gideon

AU - Manfredi,Dylan

AU - Bessette-Symons,Brandy

AU - Szuts,Attila

AU - Aczel,Balazs

PY - 2020/2/1

Y1 - 2020/2/1

N2 - Android robots that resemble humans closely, but not perfectly, can provoke negative feelings of dislike and eeriness in humans (the “Uncanny Valley” effect). We investigated whether category confusion between the perceptual categories of “robot” and “human” contributes to Uncanny Valley aversion. Using a novel, validated corpus of 182 images of real robot and human faces, we precisely estimated the shape of the Uncanny Valley and the location of the perceived robot/human boundary. To implicitly measure confusion, we tracked 358 participants’ mouse trajectories as they categorized the faces. We observed a clear Uncanny Valley, though with some interesting differences from standard theoretical predictions; the initial apex of likability for highly mechanical robots indicated that these robots were still moderately dislikable, and the Uncanny Valley itself was positioned closer to the mechanical than to the human-like end of the spectrum. We also observed a pattern of categorization suggesting that humans do perceive a categorical robot/human boundary. Yet in contrast to predictions of the category confusion mechanism hypothesis, the locations of the Uncanny Valley and of the category boundary did not coincide, and mediation analyses further failed to support a mechanistic role of category confusion. These results suggest category confusion does not explain the Uncanny Valley effect.

AB - Android robots that resemble humans closely, but not perfectly, can provoke negative feelings of dislike and eeriness in humans (the “Uncanny Valley” effect). We investigated whether category confusion between the perceptual categories of “robot” and “human” contributes to Uncanny Valley aversion. Using a novel, validated corpus of 182 images of real robot and human faces, we precisely estimated the shape of the Uncanny Valley and the location of the perceived robot/human boundary. To implicitly measure confusion, we tracked 358 participants’ mouse trajectories as they categorized the faces. We observed a clear Uncanny Valley, though with some interesting differences from standard theoretical predictions; the initial apex of likability for highly mechanical robots indicated that these robots were still moderately dislikable, and the Uncanny Valley itself was positioned closer to the mechanical than to the human-like end of the spectrum. We also observed a pattern of categorization suggesting that humans do perceive a categorical robot/human boundary. Yet in contrast to predictions of the category confusion mechanism hypothesis, the locations of the Uncanny Valley and of the category boundary did not coincide, and mediation analyses further failed to support a mechanistic role of category confusion. These results suggest category confusion does not explain the Uncanny Valley effect.

KW - Categorical perception

KW - Human-robot interaction

KW - Psychology

KW - Social interaction

KW - Uncanny valley

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072532316&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.029

DO - 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.029

M3 - Article

VL - 103

SP - 21

EP - 30

JO - Computers in Human Behavior

JF - Computers in Human Behavior

SN - 0747-5632

ER -

Mathur MB, Reichling DB, Lunardini F, Geminiani A, Antonietti A, Ruijten PAM et al. Uncanny but not confusing: multisite study of perceptual category confusion in the Uncanny Valley. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020 Feb 1;103:21-30. Available from, DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.029