ArticleFrontiers in psychology2014
A reappraisal of the uncanny valley: categorical perception or frequency-based sensitization?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Advancing ecological validity and clinical utility in virtual reality-based continuous performance test: exploring the effects of task difficulty and environmental distractors.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Impact of changes in chatbot's facial expressions on user attention and reaction time.PloS one · 2023Article
- The deviation-from-familiarity effect: Expertise increases uncanniness of deviating exemplars.PloS one · 2022Article
- Behavioral Outcomes and Neural Network Modeling of a Novel, Putative, Recategorization Sound Therapy.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Creepy cats and strange high houses: Support for configural processing in testing predictions of nine uncanny valley theories.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Macaque Gaze Responses to the Primatar: A Virtual Macaque Head for Social Cognition Research.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- The Human Takes It All: Humanlike Synthesized Voices Are Perceived as Less Eerie and More Likable. Evidence From a Subjective Ratings Study.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2020Article
- Neural Mechanisms for Accepting and Rejecting Artificial Social Partners in the Uncanny Valley.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019Article
- Upper- and lower-limb amputees show reduced levels of eeriness for images of prosthetic hands.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2019Article
- Those Virtual People all Look the Same to me: Computer-Rendered Faces Elicit a Higher False Alarm Rate Than Real Human Faces in a Recognition Memory Task.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Subthalamic nucleus detects unnatural android movement.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Avoidance of Novelty Contributes to the Uncanny Valley.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Familiar faces rendered strange: Why inconsistent realism drives characters into the uncanny valley.Journal of vision · 2016Article
- From Environment to Landscape. Reconstructing Environment Perception Using Numerical Data.Journal of archaeological method and theory · 2016Article
- Stimulus-category competition, inhibition, and affective devaluation: a novel account of the uncanny valley.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
- Arousal, valence, and the uncanny valley: psychophysiological and self-report findings.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
- Persistence of the uncanny valley: the influence of repeated interactions and a robot's attitude on its perception.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
- A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Review
- Uncanny sociocultural categories.Frontiers in psychology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The uncanny valley (UCV) hypothesis describes a non-linear relationship between perceived human-likeness and affective response. The "uncanny valley" refers to an intermediate level of human-likeness that is associated with strong negative affect. Recent studies have suggested that the uncanny valley might result from the categorical perception of human-like stimuli during identification. When presented with stimuli sharing human-like traits, participants attempt to segment the continuum in "human" and "non-human" categories. Due to the ambiguity of stimuli located at a category boundary, categorization difficulty gives rise to a strong, negative affective response. Importantly, researchers who have studied the UCV in terms of categorical perception have focused on categorization responses rather than affective ratings. In the present study, we examined whether the negative affect associated with the UCV might be explained in terms of an individual's degree of exposure to stimuli. In two experiments, we tested a frequency-based model against a categorical perception model using a category-learning paradigm. We manipulated the frequency of exemplars that were presented to participants from two categories during a training phase. We then examined categorization and affective responses functions, as well as the relationship between categorization and affective responses. Supporting previous findings, categorization responses suggested that participants acquired novel category structures that reflected a category boundary. These category structures appeared to influence affective ratings of eeriness. Crucially, participants' ratings of eeriness were additionally affected by exemplar frequency. Taken together, these findings suggest that the UCV is determined by both categorical properties as well as the frequency of individual exemplars retained in memory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.