ArticlePloS one2025
Neural correlates of the uncanny valley effect for robots and hyper-realistic masks.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural signatures of hyper-realistic AI-generated faces: dissociating behavioral indistinguishability from implicit neural evaluation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Do We View Robots as We Do Ourselves? Examining Robotic Face Processing Using EEG.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Viewing artificial objects and images that are designed to appear human can elicit a sense of unease, referred to as the 'uncanny valley' effect. Here we investigate neural correlates of the uncanny valley, using still images of androids (robots designed to look human), and humans wearing hyper-realistic silicone masks, as well as still images of real humans, in two experiments. In both experiments, human-like stimuli were harder to distinguish from real human faces than stimuli that were clearly not designed to mimic humans but contain facial features (mechanical robots and Halloween masks). Stimulus evoked potentials (electromagnetic brain responses) did not show convincing differences between faces and either androids or realistic masks when using traditional univariate statistical tests. However, a more sensitive multivariate analysis identified two regions of above-chance decoding, indicating neural differences in the response between human faces and androids/realistic masks. The first time window was around 100-200 ms post stimulus onset, and most likely corresponds to low-level image differences between conditions. The second time window was around 600 ms post stimulus onset, and may reflect top-down processing, and may correspond to the subjective sense of unease characteristic of the uncanny valley effect. Objective neural components might be used in future to rapidly train generative artificial intelligence systems to produce more realistic images that are perceived as natural by human observers.
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.