Abstract
The uncanny valley hypothesis (Mori, ) 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.
Introduction
The uncanny valley hypothesis (Mori, ) proposes that observation of a humanlike object (e.g., industrial robot, lifelike prosthetic hand, human corpse, doll, mannequin) can evoke positive or negative feelings and cognitions (referred to here as valence) depending on the object’s degree of physical similarity to human appearance (for recent overviews, see, e.g., Pollick, ; MacDorman et al., ). Importantly, the relationship between valence and human likeness is suggested to be non-linear. As illustrated in Figure 1, valence increases positively with greater human likeness up to the point of relatively high realism at the first peak of the curve along the dimension of human likeness (DOH). Positive valence reflects the experience of emotional engagement with and feelings of empathy for the humanlike object. At greater degrees of realism, the observer encounters difficulty in distinguishing an object from its natural human counterpart and experiences personal discomfort. Mori characterizes this discomfort as an uncanny feeling marked by a sense of strangeness, eeriness, and disquiet that can extend to feelings of disgust and revulsion. This uncanny feeling is reflected in a sharp negative peak or valley (i.e., uncanny valley) in the slope of the depicted valence–human likeness relationship. When an object’s appearance is so realistic that it is perceived to be human the valence of associated affect and cognition is thought to reach a second positive peak.
Figure 1
The hypothesis’ central prediction that individuals can feel less emotionally engaged or even distracted by relatively realistic humanlike objects has been very influential in guiding animators, video game designers, and roboticists in the design of virtual characters (e.g., Fabri et al.,
While Mori defined the DOH in terms of a linear change in the degree of physical humanlike similarity, we proposed that the subjective perception of objects along the DOH might be described differently, namely, in terms of the effects of categorical perception (for CP see, e.g., Harnad,
It is important to note that CP does not occur along any human likeness dimension. Campbell et al. (
Two behavioral and one neuroimaging study was conducted. The behavioral studies aimed to demonstrate that faces assigned to the human category can also vary in humanlike appearance along the DOH and to test the proposal that subjective perception of human likeness along the DOH shows effects of CP. To represent the DOH, linear continua of morphed faces were generated using avatar and human faces as endpoints to create a controlled transition of physical similarity between them. Using stimuli drawn from these continua, the first study entailed a forced choice classification task to determine the presence and location of the avatar–human category boundary, and the second used a perceptual discrimination task to determine the presence and location of the discrimination boundary (i.e., the point of enhanced perceptual discrimination) and to verify CP. The subsequent neuroimaging study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate non-human–human category processing in the brain. The first aim of this was to show that distinctly different brain regions are responsive to processing the physical similarity of faces along the DOH and to processing the DOH’s discrete human and non-human categories. For this, we used a pair-repetition priming paradigm (for reviews see, Grill-Spector and Malach,
We focused in the fMRI study on category change, hypothesizing that implicit processing of the discrete change in category between our prime and target stimuli would modulate neural activity in regions associated with category learning and categorization uncertainty, that is, basal ganglia, medial temporal lobe (MTL), thalamus, medial frontal gyrus, and the anterior insula (e.g., Ashby and Maddox,
Materials and Methods
Participants
Healthy male and female, consistently right-handed (Annett,
Stimuli
Avatar–human morph continua were generated to represent Mori’s DOH. The selected stimuli for use as endpoints in the morphing procedure were 32 photographic images of unknown people and 32 facial images of avatars, together forming 32 morph continua (see Figure 2B). All faces were male, presented with full face, frontal view, and neutral expression. The avatars were generated with the modeling suite Poser 7 (Smith Micro Software)1, which permits considerable texture detail and control over the facial mesh. The facial geometry and texture of the avatars were modeled (age and configural cues) to closely match the human counterpart to minimize perception of biological motion during quick successive presentation of faces (e.g., Schultz and Pilz,
Figure 2

Results of the forced choice classification task (A) and example of a morph continuum (B). Mean percentage of responses (across 25 participants) in the forced choice classification task (A), showing the grand average of the response data (dashed black line), the fitted logistic response curve (solid blue line), and the estimated mean category boundary value (blue dashed line) over all continua. Results indicate a step-like response function consistent with the presence of a category boundary. Example of a morph continuum (B) with 13 levels from M0 to M12. The relative degree of linear physical transition between the avatar (eg., 100 % A) and human (eg., 0 % H) endpoints of morphs M0 and M4 (avatar category) and M8 and M12 (human category) are shown as percentages. The controlled physical dissimilarity of M0, M4, M8, and M12 was 33% along the continuum. These morphs were used in the subsequent perceptual discrimination task and fMRI study.
All morphs (i.e., M0–M12) were presented in the forced choice classification task of study 1. As described in the following, only those morphs representing increments of 33.33% in physical difference along each continuum (i.e., M0, M4, M8, M12) were used for the subsequent perceptual discrimination task of study 2 and the target monitoring task in the (fMRI) study 3.
Study 1: Forced choice classification task
A two-alternative forced choice classification task was conducted to determine the presence of a sigmoid shaped response function along the avatar–human morph continua. This response function is considered to indicate a category boundary (Harnad,
Participants
N = 25 volunteers (13 female, mean age 21.8 years; range 19–28 years) participated.
Materials and Procedure
All participants were tested individually. Each participant received written instructions presented on the screen before commencement of the experiment. A practice pre-test of five trials using stimuli from continua not included in the main test was then performed to ensure that the instructions had been understood. It was again ensured that participants understood the meaning of the word avatar. All morph stimuli were presented individually in random order for a total presentation of 416 trials. Each trial began with the presentation of a fixation point for 500 ms (participants were required to maintain fixation), followed by a morph image for 750 ms. The participant was asked to identify the stimulus as either an avatar or human as quickly and precisely as possible by pressing one of two response keys. A black screen with fixation point remained after morph image presentation until the participant pressed a key, after which a blank black screen without fixation cross remained for 1500 ms until the next trial began. The task was conducted in a sound attenuated and light-dimmed room, and morph stimuli were presented on a LCD monitor (1280 × 1024 resolution, 60 Hz refresh rate, at eye-to-monitor viewing distance of 62 cm), using Presentation® software (Version 14.1)2.
Analyses
The classification data were summarized by the shape of the avatar–human classification curve as described by the slope of the response function. The slope was determined by fitting logistic function models to the response data of each participant and continuum, and the parameter estimates were derived. Individual continua were analyzed across participants to ensure best fit of logistic functions, these reflecting a step-like shape in the avatar–human classification curve and thus a categorical component (Harnad,
Study 2: Perceptual discrimination task
A variant of the same-different discrimination task (e.g., Angeli et al.,
Participants
N = 20 participants (nine female, mean age 25.1 years; range 18–30 years) were tested.
Materials and Procedure
The choice of continua for use in this task was determined on the basis of the results (see Forced Choice Classification) of the preceding forced choice classification task. Four morphs M0 and M4 (categorized as avatars) and M8 and M12 (categorized as human) were selected from each of the continua (see Figure 2B), with M4 and M8 straddling the category boundary. M0, M4, M8, and M12 represent increments of 33% along the length of each continuum to ensuring control of physical dissimilarity.
For the perceptual discrimination task, stimulus trials were presented that each comprised a pair of faces (see Figure 3). The first face of a face pair was either an avatar or a human. Trials in which the first face was an avatar are referred to as “avatar” trials (see Figure 3C) and those in which a human face was presented first are referred to as “human” trials (see Figure 3D). In the avatar trials, the first face was always the avatar morph M4, and the first face in the human trials was always the human morph M8. The choice of the second face of each face pair was determined according to three different face pair conditions: “within” category face pairs (both faces drawn from within a category), “between” category face pairs (first and second face morphs lying either side of the category boundary), and the “same” stimulus face pairs (faces of a pair are identical). In the within category condition, the second face was morph M0 for avatar trials and M12 for human trials. In the between category condition, the second face was morph M8 for avatar trials and M4 for human trials. In the “same” stimulus condition, M4 was used as the first and second face for avatar trials and M8 as the first and second face for human trials. Based on these conditions, the presentation of face pairs was therefore as follows: Avatar trials comprised the face pair morphs M4–M0 for the within, M4–M4 for the same, and M4–M8 for the between conditions, and humans trials comprised the face pair morphs M8–M12 for the within, M8–M8 for the same, and M8–M4 for the between conditions.
Figure 3

Results of the perceptual discrimination task (A,C) and example of stimulus conditions (B,D). The three different stimulus conditions for pairs of faces presented in the perceptual discrimination task and the fMRI study are shown (B,D): the faces of a pair were drawn from the within the same category (“within”), were identical (“same”), or showed category change by straddling opposite sides of the category boundary (“between”). In the perceptual discrimination task, same-different judgments were made according to whether faces were the same or different in physical appearance. Morphs M0, M4, and M8 were used for analysis of avatar trials (B) and M4, M8, and M12 for human trials (D): the first face in (B) is always M4 and in (D) always M8. The upper panels show the proportion of “different” responses for avatar (A) and human (C) trials across 20 participants. Controlling for relative distance of morphs along the continua, results show better discrimination accuracy for face pairs that crossed the category boundary (as determined in the forced choice classification task) than for pairs drawn from the same (avatar or human) side of the boundary, thus demonstrating categorical perception along our continua of human likeness for avatar and human faces.
Both faces of each face pair were always drawn from the same continuum in which they were originally morphed. The presentation of face pairs was pseudo-randomized so that no trials of face pairs from within the same continuum were shown in close sequence. The presentation of avatar or human trials from a given continuum was determined randomly but counterbalanced across all participants in such a way as to ensure that each participant viewed either avatar or human trials from any given continuum, and that in total an equal number of avatar or human trials were viewed. Each face of a face pair was presented for 500 ms with an inter stimulus interval (ISI) of either 75 or 300 ms between the faces of a pair. This was to determine whether ISI duration would differentially impact judgments (see, e.g., Rotshtein et al.,
The task was conducted in a sound attenuated and light-dimmed room, and morph stimuli were presented on a LCD monitor (1280 × 1024 resolution, 60 Hz refresh rate, at eye-to-monitor viewing distance of 62 cm), using Presentation® software (Version 14.1, see text footnote 2)
Analyses
To examine discrimination accuracy for face pairs that crossed the category boundary compared with face pairs from the same side of the boundary, the “different” responses (indicating the judgment that both faces of a pair were of different physical appearance) were computed as proportions of the total number of face trials and subjected to 3 × 2 ANOVA, with 3 face-pair conditions (within, between, same) and 2 ISI (short and long). The data for avatar trials and human trials were treated separately in analysis. Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment was applied to correct the degrees of freedom whenever the assumption of sphericity was violated. SPSS 16 was used for data analysis.
Study 3: Target monitoring task and fMRI
Participants
N = 22 volunteers (10 female; mean age, 21.9 years; range, 19–27 years) participated in the fMRI study.
Materials and Procedure
A pair-repetition paradigm with a target monitoring task was applied. The stimulus conditions (i.e., the morph stimuli for the face pairs in the within, same and between conditions in the avatar and human trials, and the presentation times for the stimuli, ISI, and SOA) were the same as described in the preceding perceptual discrimination task.
The target monitoring task required participants to press a response button upon detection of one of four possible up-turned rare target faces (M0, M4, M8, or M12) selected at random from an unused morph continuum. This was to ensure attention of the participants to the stimuli of interest. This task requires no explicit judgments of human or avatar category or physical similarity of faces, thus eliminating the confounding effects on BOLD signal modulation by motor response requirements (Henson,
fMRI data acquisition
Structural and functional images were acquired using a 3-T whole-body MR unit (Philips Medical Systems, Best, The Netherlands) and eight-channel Philips SENSE head coil. Structural images of the entire brain were registered using a T1-weighted three-dimensional, spoiled gradient echo pulse sequence (180 slices, TR = 20 ms, TE = 2.3 ms, flip angle = 20°, FOV = 220 mm × 220 mm × 135 mm, matrix size = 224 × 187, voxel size = 0.98 mm × 1.18 mm × 0.75 mm, resliced to 0.86 mm × 0.86 mm × 0.75 mm). Functional images were acquired from 225 whole-head scans per run using a Sensitivity Encoded (SENSE; Pruessmann et al.,
fMRI data analysis
Preprocessing and MRI data analysis were performed using MATLAB 2006b (Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA) and the SPM5 software package3. All images were realigned to the first recorded volume, normalized into standard stereotactical space (using the EPI-template provided by the Montreal Neurological Institute, MNI brain), resliced to 2 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm voxel size and smoothed using a 6-mm full-width-at-half-maximum Gaussian kernel. Activated voxels were identified by a general linear model (Friston et al.,
The pair-repetition paradigm used the same face pairs and face-pair conditions as described for the preceding perceptual discrimination task. Briefly, the “within,” “same,” and “between” face pair conditions used the face pair morphs M4–M0 (i.e., within), M4–M4 (i.e., same), and M4–M8 (i.e., between) in the avatar trials and M8–M12 (i.e., within), M8–M8 (i.e., same), and M8–M4 (i.e., between) in the human trials (see Figure 3B). Contrasts were defined on the basis of these face-pair conditions in order to identify brain regions sensitive to physical and category-related change between the presented prime and target stimuli. The rationale behind this is that (further to the description in the introduction) the neural adaptation effect (Grill-Spector and Malach,
Whole-brain voxel-wise analyses was performed. In examining the sensitivity of brain regions to variation in physical attributes, we expected and focused on activations in bilateral regions of the mid-fusiform gyrus (e.g., Jiang et al.,
The hypothesized regions of interest (ROIs) sensitive to category change are described in the introduction. The exploration of further regions associated with affective processing and affective ambiguity focused on the amygdala. Because of this dual approach with predefined ROIs and exploration of additional regions, all clusters of voxels (k = 20 voxels) responsive to category change that survived a threshold of p < 0.005 (uncorrected) are reported and discussed. The more lenient threshold (but more stringent level of contiguous voxels) reflected the exploratory interest in reducing type-2 errors (e.g., Wager et al.,
Results
Forced choice classification
The logistic slope value of the fitted regression curve of each individual continuum was highly significant at p > 0.001. Given the large number of values for all continua, we report the test of this response function across all continua and against zero in a one-sample t-test. This showed that the response function has a highly significant logistic component (t31 = 29.28, p > 0.001) reflecting a sigmoid step-like function consistent with the presence of a category boundary (Harnad,
Morphs M0, M4, M8, and M12 were selected for presentation in the subsequent two studies. The mean percentage of avatar or human identifications across all continua (reported here in terms of the response “human”, as shown in Figure 2A) for the morphs M0, M4, M8, and M12 was 2.25 (SD = 2.5), 10.25 (SD = 4.8), 89.27 (SD = 8.4), 98 (SD = 2.9), respectively (see Figure 2B).
In the interest of gaining an overall picture of categorization response times (RT) along the DOH, an RM-ANOVA with factors continuum (32 continua) × morph position (13 levels) and RT as dependent variable was conducted. The analysis revealed no effect for continuum, but there was a main effect for morph position, F(2.75, 66.01) = 27.04, p < 0.001. Consistent with the preceding result of maximum uncertainty in decision responses at morph M6, the mean RT across participants indicated longest RTs for M6. To characterize this more clearly, the mean RT values at M6 were compared with the mean RT values at all other morph positions. A one-way RM-ANOVA analysis with morph position (two levels: M6 versus all other morphs) and RT in seconds as dependent variable collapsed across continua showed that RT for M6 (M = 1.42, SD = 0.26) differed highly significantly from RT for the other morph positions (M = 0.99, SD = 0.46), F(1,24) = 62.04, p < 0.001.
As the morphs M0, M4, M8, and M12 were to be used in the subsequent two studies, we tested also for differences in RT between these morphs. A one-way RM-ANOVA analysis with morph position (four levels: M0, M4, M8, and M12) and RT as dependent variable collapsed across continua was conducted. The analysis revealed an effect for morph position, F(1.77, 41.32) = 19.19, p < 0.001. Tests of planned within-subject contrasts showed significant differences in RT within each category such that RT for M0 (M = 0.67 s, SD = 0.27) was shorter than for M4 (M = 1.05 s, SD = 0.71) [F(1.24) = 48.2 p < 0.001] and RT for M12 (M = 0.91, SD = 0.56) was shorter than RT for M8 (M = 1.19 s, SD = 0.56) [F(1.24) = 17.2 p < 0.001], thus indicating quicker responses for morphs at either end of the continua than for the morphs M4 and M8 that straddled the category boundary. But, there was no significant difference in RT between M4 and M8.
Perceptual discrimination task
Avatar trials
For the “avatar” trials (see Figure 3A), the ANOVA analyses showed a significant main effect on discrimination accuracy of face pair condition, that is, within, same, and between [F(2,38) = 149.74, p < 0.001] and of ISI [F(1,19) = 10.28, p = 0.006]. The ISI effect appears to reflect a general bias irrespective of face pair condition toward more “different” responses in the short ISI condition than in the long ISI condition. Pre-planned tests of within-subject contrasts revealed that face pairs that crossed the category boundary (“between” trial type) were significantly more often indicated as different than were those pairs from within a category [F(1,19) = 142.89, p < 0.001]. There was also a significant effect of discrimination accuracy within the avatar category because pairs from within a category (i.e., “within” trial type) were more frequently indicated to be different than those pairs of the “same” trial type, F(1,19) = 6,09, p < 0.026.
Human trials
Similarly, for the “human” trials (see Figure 3B), the ANOVA analyses showed a significant effect on discrimination accuracy of face pair condition [F(2,38) = 876.46, p < 0.001] but no effect of ISI. Pre-planned tests of within-subject contrasts revealed that face pairs that crossed the category boundary (“between” trial type) were significantly more often indicated as different than were those pairs from within a category (“within” trial type), F(1,19) = 932.03, p < 0.001. There was also an effect of discrimination accuracy within the human category because pairs from within a category were significantly more frequently indicated to be different than those pairs of the “same” trial type, F(1,19) = 478.52, p = 0.28.
In summary, the results demonstrate that processes of CP are very likely to influence processing of objects along the DOH. The effect shown in this task was one of better discrimination accuracy for pairs that crossed the category boundary than for equidistant pairs drawn from within a category on one or other side of the boundary, this effect applying similarly for both avatar and human trials.
Target monitoring task and event-related fMRI
On this basis of the perceptual discrimination task, brain activity was expected to be differentially affected by the within and between category conditions. The ISI condition (short versus long) of the perceptual discrimination task was also carried over to the fMRI study.
Sensitivity to physical change
To detect brain regions sensitive to differences in physical features, face pairs in which there was a change in physical features between prime and target were compared with those face pairs in which there was no change in physical features (see Table 1).
Table 1
| Change in physical qualities versus no change in physical qualities: | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region of activation | BA | L/R | x | y | z | Max t value | No. of voxels |
| AVATAR | |||||||
| Fusiform gyrus | 37 | R | 38 | −36 | −30 | 4.01 | 8 |
| Superior temporal gyrus | 22 | R | 50 | −60 | 14 | 4.85 | 16 |
| Middle frontal gyrus | 6 | R | 36 | −2 | 42 | 4.24 | 6 |
| HUMAN | |||||||
| Cerebellum | R | 42 | −58 | −26 | 4.01 | 31 | |
| °Fusiform gyrus | 37 | R | 42 | −52 | −18 | 3.84 | |
| Fusiform gyrus | 37 | L | −46 | −58 | −18 | 3.75 | 5 |
| Precuneus | 4 | L | −14 | −42 | 58 | 5.73 | 33 |
| Mid-cingulate cortex | 32 | R | 10 | 18 | 38 | 4.70 | 31 |
| Insula | 13 | L | −38 | 20 | 8 | 4.01 | 5 |
Brain areas sensitive to physical change.
Coordinates in MNI space and maximum t values are shown for local voxel maxima in each cluster (SPM{t} maps thresholded at p < 0.001 uncorrected for multiple comparisons, with a cluster extent threshold of 5 voxels). °, Subpeaks of a cluster; BA, approximate Brodmann area; L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere; MNI voxel coordinates; listed brain regions exceeding p (uncorr.) < 0.001.
Avatar trials
The contrast “within plus between versus same” was applied to face pairs in which an avatar was the prime, and this revealed right-lateralized increased activations in the fusiform gyrus (BA37) as shown in Figure 4A, superior temporal gyrus (BA22), and middle frontal gyrus (BA6). No differences between short and long ISI were found.
Figure 4

Effects of physical change on hemodynamic activity during observation of avatar (A) and human (B) trials.
Human trials
Similarly, the contrast “within plus between versus same” for face pairs in which a human was the prime revealed modulation of activation bilaterally in the fusiform gyrus (BA37) as shown in Figure 4B, left precuneus (BA4), right mid-cingulum (BA32), and left insula (BA13). No differences between short and long ISI were found.
Sensitivity to category change
To detect brain regions selectively responsive to category change across the boundary in the avatar-to-human and human-to-avatar directions along the continuum, face pairs in which there was a change in category between prime and target were compared with the conditions in which there was no such change in category (see Table 2).
Table 2
| Change in category versus no change in category | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region of activation | BA | L/R | x | y | z | Max t value | No. of voxels |
| AVATAR PRIME AND HUMAN TARGET | |||||||
| Hippocampus/entorhinal area | 28/34 | L | −24 | −14 | −14 | 4.12 | 97 |
| °Perirhinal cortex | 35 | L | −22 | −26 | −16 | 3.45 | |
| °Amygdala | L | −20 | −8 | 20 | 3.12 | ||
| Mid-insula | 13 | R | 40 | −5 | 16 | 3.54 | 29 |
| HUMAN PRIME AND AVATAR TARGET | |||||||
| Putamen | L | 20 | 6 | 14 | 3.88 | 31 | |
| Thalamus/lateral posterior nucleus | R | 14 | −22 | 12 | 3.86 | 54 | |
| Caudate head | R | 12 | 14 | −6 | 3.62 | 23 | |
| Red nucleus | R | −6 | −16 | −6 | 3.36 | 24 | |
Brain areas sensitive to category change.
Coordinates in MNI space and maximum t values are shown for local voxel maxima in each cluster (SPM{t} maps thresholded at p < 0.005 uncorrected for multiple comparisons, with a cluster extent threshold of 20 voxels). °, Subpeaks of a cluster; BA, approximate Brodmann area; L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere; MNI voxel coordinates; listed brain regions exceeding p (uncorr.) < 0.005.
Avatar-to-human direction along DOH
For the avatar-to-human direction, the contrast “between versus same plus within” was applied to face pairs in which an avatar was the prime. This showed (at p < 0.005) a large cluster that included the left hippocampus (BA28), entorhinal area (BA34), perirhinal area (BA35), and amygdala, and a further cluster in the right mid-insula (BA13) (see Figure 5A). The activation in the left hippocampus (BA28) was found also at the higher significance threshold of p < 0.001 [max t value 4.12 (k = 12) at −24, −14, −14]. No differences between short and long ISI were found.
Figure 5

Effects of category change in the avatar-to-human direction (A) and human-to-avatar direction (B) along continua of human likeness.
Human-to-avatar direction along DOH
To establish the pattern of activation associated with brain regions sensitive to crossing the category boundary in the direction of human-to-avatar, the same contrast (“between versus same plus within”) was applied for face pairs in which a human was the prime. This showed a different pattern of brain areas sensitive to category change (at p < 0.005), including left and right putamen, left caudate head, right lateral posterior nucleus of thalamus, and left red nucleus (see Figure 5B). Both the right thalamus (lateral posterior nucleus) [max t value 3.88 (k = 13) at 14, −22, 12], left caudate head [max t value 3.62 (k = 5) at 12, 14, −6] and left putamen [max t value 3.88 (k = 5) at −20, 6, 14] were found also at the higher significance threshold of p < 0.001. No differences between short and long ISI were found.
Discussion
The forced choice classification task showed that faces drawn from continua representing the DOH are subjectively assigned to the discrete avatar and human categories. Because morphed faces are computer-generated and modeled, Seyama and Nagayama (
Mori was particularly concerned with the threshold between non-human and human object perception and associated uncertainty and discomfort. Defining the non-human–human category boundary is therefore critical to examining Mori’s hypothesis. The classification response function of all our continua showed a sigmoid shape consistent with the presence of an avatar–human category boundary (Harnad,
The perceptual discrimination task showed that a pair of faces located either side of the avatar–human category boundary is easier to distinguish than a pair of faces (with the same degree of physical difference along the DOH) drawn from within a category, thus indicating CP for the DOH. In other words, the cognitive representation of the category structure of the DOH influences the observer’s sensitivity for perceptual information relating to human likeness. Evidently, this sensitivity is greatest at or near to the threshold of non-human and human object perception at which small changes in realism (i.e., concerning human or non-human-specifying perceptual features) might evoke uncertainty and discomfort. Taken together, these behavioral findings demonstrate that the DOH may be defined both in terms of a gradual change in the degree of physical humanlike similarity, as described by Mori, as well as in terms of the effects of CP and the dimension’s underlying category structure, as proposed in this investigation.
The stimulus conditions described by Mori (i.e., observing novel non-human objects subtly different in physical appearance from that of the human counterpart) were simulated within the constraints of fMRI methodology. The imaging data confirmed that different regions of the brain are responsive to processing change in physical humanlike similarity and processing change in category along the DOH. We consider the findings for physical change first.
The right and left mid-fusiform areas were sensitive to fine-grained change in physical human likeness for human trials and a different right mid-fusiform area was sensitive to physical change for avatar trials. This is consistent with reports in other studies of sensitivity in these areas to facial physical similarity (Xu et al.,
A change in the category of sequentially presented faces (i.e., prime and target of paired faces) was found to evoke modulations of neural activity in brain regions previously associated with category learning and category uncertainty. The pattern of regions was entirely different depending on whether the target was an avatar in the human–avatar pairs or human in the avatar–human pairs. This shows that the direction of change along the DOH does influence the way in which humanlike faces are processed, at least within our paradigm. The dorsal and ventral striatum (putamen and head of caudate), thalamus, and red nucleus were responsive to the avatar target and the MTL (hippocampus, entorhinal, and perirhinal areas), mid-insula, and amygdala were responsive to the human target.
The results for the striatum and MTL were the most prominent. These regions are thought to have different roles in and an antagonistic relationship during category processing and learning (e.g., Seger and Cincotta,
In the pair-repetition paradigm, processing of the target stimulus is biased by the implicit memory of the preceding prime that represents a different “expected” or “predicted” category than is actually shown in the target. The caudate head (responsive to avatar targets) is sensitive to prediction error in various tasks (e.g., O’Doherty et al.,
Medial temporal lobe structures (responsive to human targets) are involved in processing novel and familiar stimuli, novelty detection, and uncertainty coding (e.g., Stern et al.,
Consistent with its role in decision making under conditions of category processing and uncertainty (e.g., Volz et al.,
In exploring additional brain areas otherwise associated with affective processing, the amygdala was found to be responsive to category change in avatar–human face pairs. The amygdala is responsive to natural and computer-generated human faces (e.g., Todorov and Engell,
This investigation demonstrates that the definition of the DOH in terms of the degree of object similarity to human appearance does not reflect the way in which human likeness is subjectively perceived along this dimension. The forced choice categorization task showed that there is variation in human likeness within the human category, and the perceptual discrimination task confirmed that processes of CP and associated representations of the DOH’s category structure influence the perception of human likeness. Given the inconsistent findings in “uncanny” research to date, careful definition of the category boundary especially in studies using morph continua is therefore important. It is likely that mechanisms associated with category processing and the representation of human likeness also influence affective experience. For example, increased uncertainty in forced choice category decisions might be associated with discomfort (assuming that Mori’s hypothesis is correct), though any discomfort need not be limited to the non-human side of the category boundary along the DOH. The present behavioral findings suggest that the general conception of the DOH should be revised. As Mori did not embed his ideas in any psychological framework, we suggest that his hypothesis should be considered in terms of the well-established psychological empirical–theoretical framework of category perception and learning. This could prove useful in examining where along the DOH negative or uncanny experience is most likely to occur for a given set of stimuli and in throwing light on the potential role of categorization ambiguity in evoking negative affect. It is of course possible that any association between category ambiguity and negative affect is not specific to humanlike stimuli along the DOH but is a more general feature of category ambiguity itself. The framework set out in this study could also be applied to other fields of related research to understand how variously realistic humanlike characters influence in association with category ambiguity for example the experience of presence (i.e., immersive experience) in virtual reality (e.g., Brenton et al.,
Statements
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the European Union FET Integrated Project PRESENCCIA (Contract number 27731).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AngeliA.DavidoffJ.ValentineT. (2008). Face familiarity, distinctiveness, and categorical perception. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove)61, 690–707.10.1080/17470210701399305
2
AnnettM. (1970). A classification of hand preference by association analysis. Br. J. Psychol.61, 303–321.10.1111/j.2044-8295.1970.tb01274.x
3
AshbyF. G.MaddoxW. T. (2005). Human category learning. Annu. Rev. Psychol.56, 149–178.10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070217
4
AylettR. S. (2004). Agents and affect: why embodied agents need affective systems. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.3025, 496–504.10.1007/978-3-540-24674-9_52
5
BalasB.NelsonC. A. (2010). The role of face shape and pigmentation in other-race face perception: an electrophysiological study. Neuropsychologia48, 498–506.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.007
6
BarenseM.BusseyT.LeeA.RogersT. T.HodgesJ. R.SaksidaL.MurrayE.GrahamK. (2005). Feature ambiguity influences performance on novel object discriminations in patients with damage to perirhinal cortex. Cognitive Neuroscience Society Annual Meeting Program 2005, New York, NY, 125–116.
7
BauerH. H.NeumannM. (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.
8
BiedermanI.JuG. (1998). Surface vs. edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cogn. Psychol.20, 38–64.10.1016/0010-0285(88)90024-2
9
BrayS.O’DohertyJ. (2007). Neural coding of reward-prediction error signals during classical conditioning with attractive faces. J. Neurophysiol.97, 3036–3045.10.1152/jn.01211.2006
10
BrentonH.GilliesM.BallinD.ChattingD. (2008). The uncanny valley: does it exist?Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human-Animated Characters Interaction, HCI 2005:The Bigger Picture, Edinburgh.
11
BusseyT. J.SaksidaL. M.MurrayE. A. (2003). Impairments in visual discrimination after perirhinal cortex lesions: testing “declarative” versus “perceptual-mnemonic” views of perirhinal cortex function. Eur. J. Neurosci.17, 649–660.10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02475.x
12
CampbellR.PascalisO.ColemanM.WallaceS. B.BensonP. J. (1987). Are faces of different species perceived categorically by human observers?Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.264, 1429–1434.10.1098/rspb.1997.0199
13
ChaminadeT.HodginsJ.KawatoM. (2007). Anthropomorphism influences perception of computer-animated characters’ actions. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.2, 206–216.10.1093/scan/nsm017
14
CincottaC. M.SegerC. A. (2007). Dissociation between striatal regions while learning to categorize via feedback and via observation. J. Cogn. Neurosci.19, 249–265.10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.249
15
CohenJ. (2001). Defining identification: a theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Commun. Soc.4, 245–264.10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01
16
CritchleyH. D.MathiasC. J.DolanR. J. (2002). Fear conditioning in humans: the influence of awareness and autonomic arousal on functional neuroanatomy. Neuron33, 653–663.10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00588-3
17
den OudenH. E.DaunizeauJ.RoiserJ.FristonK. J.StephanK. E. (2010). Striatal prediction error modulates cortical coupling. J. Neurosci.30, 3210–3219.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4458-09.2010
18
EtkinA.EgnerT.PerazaD. M.KandelE. R.HirschJ. (2006). Resolving emotional conflict: a role for the rostral anterior cingulate cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron51, 871–882.10.1016/j.neuron.2006.07.029
19
FabriM.MoorD.HobbsD. (2004). Mediating the expression of emotion in educational collaborative virtual environments: an experimental study. Int. J. Virtual Reality7, 66–81.10.1007/s10055-003-0116-7
20
FiloteoJ. V.MaddoxW. T.SalmonD. P.SongD. D. (2005). Information-integration category learning in patients with striatal dysfunction. Neuropsychology19, 212–222.10.1037/0894-4105.19.2.212
21
FlemingS. M.WhiteleyL.HulmeO. J.SahaniM.DolanR. J. (2010). Effects of category-specific costs on neural systems for perceptual decision-making. J. Neurophysiol.103, 3238–3247.10.1152/jn.01084.2009
22
FristonK. J.HolmesA. P.WorsleyK. J.PolineJ. P.FrithC. D.FrackowiakR. S. J. (1995). Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum. Brain Mapp.2, 189–210.10.1002/hbm.460020402
23
GrahamK. S.ScahillV. L.HornbergerM.BarenseM. D.LeeA. C.BusseyT. J.SaksidaL. M. (2006). Abnormal categorization and perceptual learning in patients with hippocampal damage. J. Neurosci.26, 7547–7554.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1535-06.2006
24
GrayM. A.CritchleyH. D. (2007). Interoceptive basis to craving. Neuron54, 183–186.10.1016/j.neuron.2007.03.024
25
GreenR. D.MacDormanK. F.HoC.-C.VasudevanS. K. (2008). Sensitivity to the proportions of faces that vary in human likeness. Comput. Hum. Behav.24, 2456–2474.10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.019
26
Grill-SpectorK.HensonR.MartinA. (2006). Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.)10, 14–23.10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.006
27
Grill-SpectorK.MalachR. (2001). fMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons. Acta Psychol. (Amst.)107, 293–321.10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00019-1
28
GrinbandJ.HirschJ.FerreraV. P. (2006). A neural representation of categorization uncertainty in the human brain. Neuron49, 757–763.10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.032
29
GuptaR.KoscikT. R.BecharaA.TranelD. (2011). The amygdala and decision-making. Neuropsychologia49, 760–766.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.029
30
HansonD. (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.
31
HarnadS. R. (1987). “Introduction: psychological and cognitive aspects of categorical perception: a critical overview,” in Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition, ed. HarnadS. (New York: Cambridge University Press), 1–25.
32
HeekerenH. R.MarrettS.UngerleiderL. G. (2008). The neural systems that mediate human perceptual decision making. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.9, 467–479.10.1038/nrn2374
33
HensonR. N. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of priming. Prog. Neurobiol.70, 53–81.10.1016/S0301-0082(03)00086-8
34
HerwigU.KaffenbergerT.BaumgartnerT.JanckeL. (2007). Neural correlates of a “pessimistic” attitude when anticipating events of unknown emotional valence. Neuroimage34, 848–858.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.035
35
HoC.-C.MacDormanK. (2010). Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Comput. Hum. Behav.26, 1508–1518.10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.015
36
HsuM.BhattM.AdolphsR.TranelD.CamererC. F. (2005). Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science310, 1680–1683.10.1126/science.1115327
37
JensenJ.SmithA. J.WilleitM.CrawleyA. P.MikulisD. J.VitcuI.KapurS. (2007). Separate brain regions code for salience vs. valence during reward prediction in humans. Hum. Brain Mapp.28, 294–302.10.1002/hbm.20274
38
JiangF.DricotL.BlanzV.GoebelR.RossionB. (2009). Neural correlates of shape and surface reflectance information in individual faces. Neuroscience163, 1078–1091.10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.07.062
39
JiangX.BradleyE.RiniR. A.ZeffiroT.VanmeterJ.RiesenhuberM. (2007). Categorization training results in shape- and category-selective human neural plasticity. Neuron53, 891–903.10.1016/j.neuron.2007.02.015
40
JiangX.RosenE.ZeffiroT.VanmeterJ.BlanzV.RiesenhuberM. (2006). Evaluation of a shape-based model of human face discrimination using fMRI and behavioral techniques. Neuron50, 159–172.10.1016/j.neuron.2006.03.012
41
King-CasasB.TomlinD.AnenC.CamererC. F.QuartzS. R.MontagueP. R. (2005). Getting to know you: reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science308, 78–83.10.1126/science.1108062
42
KleinhansN. M.JohnsonL. C.MahurinR.RichardsT.StegbauerK. C.GreensonJ.DawsonG.AylwardE. (2007). Increased amygdala activation to neutral faces is associated with better face memory performance. Neuroreport18, 987–991.10.1097/WNR.0b013e328165d189
43
KumaranD.MaguireE. A. (2006). An unexpected sequence of events: mismatch detection in the human hippocampus. PLoS Biol.4, e424.10.1371/journal.pbio.0040424
44
LevyI.SnellJ.NelsonA. J.RustichiniA.GlimcherP. W. (2010). Neural representation of subjective value under risk and ambiguity. J. Neurophysiol.103, 1036–1047.10.1152/jn.00853.2009
45
LiS.MayhewS. D.KourtziZ. (2009). Learning shapes the representation of behavioral choice in the human brain. Neuron62, 441–452.10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.016
46
LutzA.GreischarL. L.PerlmanD. M.DavidsonR. J. (2009). BOLD signal in insula is differentially related to cardiac function during compassion meditation in experts vs. novices. Neuroimage47, 1038–1046.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.081
47
MacDormanK. (2005a). “Mortality salience and the uncanny valley,” in IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Tsukuba: IEEE), 339–405.
48
MacDormanK. (2005b). “Androids as an Experimental Apparatus: Why is There an Uncanny Valley and Can We Exploit it?” in Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science: A CogSci 2005 Workshop, Stresa, 106–118.
49
MacDormanK. (2006). Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity, and eeriness: an exploration of the uncanny valley. Paper presented at the ICCS/CogSci-2006 Long Symposium: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, Vancouver.
50
MacDormanK.GreenR.HoC.-C.KochC. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Comput. Hum. Behav.25, 695–710.10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.026
51
MacDormanK.IshiguroH. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive science research. Interact. Stud.7, 297–337.10.1075/is.7.3.10mac
52
MaddoxW. T.AshbyF. G. (2004). Dissociating explicit and procedural-learning based systems of perceptual category learning. Behav. Processes66, 309–332.10.1016/j.beproc.2004.03.011
53
MeeterM.RadicsG.MyersC. E.GluckM. A.HopkinsR. O. (2008). Probabilistic categorization: how do normal participants and amnesic patients do it?Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.32, 237–248.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.11.001
54
MinatoT.ShimadaM.ItakuraS.LeeK.IshiguroH. (2006). Evaluating the human likeness of an android by comparing gaze behaviors elicited by the android and a person. Adv. Robot.20, 1147–1163.10.1163/156855306778522505
55
MoriM. (1970). Bukimi no tani [the uncanny valley]. Energy7, 33–35.
56
MurrayS. O.WojciulikE. (2004). Attention increases neural selectivity in the human lateral occipital complex. Nat. Neurosci.7, 70–74.10.1038/nn1161
57
NetaM.WhalenP. J. (2010). The primacy of negative interpretations when resolving the valence of ambiguous facial expressions. Psychol. Sci.21, 901–907.10.1177/0956797610373934
58
O’DohertyJ. P.DayanP.FristonK.CritchleyH.DolanR. J. (2003). Temporal difference models and reward-related learning in the human brain. Neuron38, 329–337.10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00169-7
59
O’TooleA. J.VetterT.BlanzV. (1999). Three-dimensional shape and two-dimensional surface reflectance contributions to face recognition: an application of three-dimensional morphing. Vision Res.39, 3145–3155.10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00034-6
60
PastoreR. E. (1987). “Categorical perception: some psychophysical models,” in Categorical perception: The groundwork of Cognition, ed. HarnadS. (New York: Cambridge University Press), 29–52.
61
PaulusM. P.SteinM. B. (2006). An insular view of anxiety. Biol. Psychiatry60, 383–387.10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.03.042
62
PetrovicP.PeterssonK. M.GhatanP. H.Stone-ElanderS.IngvarM. (2000). Pain-related cerebral activation is altered by a distracting cognitive task. Pain85, 19–30.10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00232-8
63
PhelpsE. A. (2004). Human emotion and memory: Interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.14, 198–202.10.1016/j.conb.2004.03.015
64
PhelpsE. A.LeDouxJ. E. (2005). Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: from animal models to human behavior. Neuron48, 175–187.10.1016/j.neuron.2005.09.025
65
PhelpsE. A.O’ConnorK. J.GatenbyJ. C.GoreJ. C.GrillonC.DavisM. (2008). Activation of the left amygdala to a cognitive representation of fear. Neurosciences4, 37–41.
66
PoldrackR. A.ClarkJ.Pare-BlagoevE. J.ShohamyD.Creso MoyanoJ.MyersC.GluckM. A. (2001). Interactive memory systems in the human brain. Nature414, 546–550.10.1038/35107080
67
PoldrackR. A.FoerdeK. (2008). Category learning and the memory systems debate. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.32, 197–205.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.07.007
68
PoldrackR. A.PrabhakaranV.SegerC. A.GabrieliJ. D. (1999). Striatal activation during acquisition of a cognitive skill. Neuropsychology13, 564–574.10.1037/0894-4105.13.4.564
69
PoldrackR. A.RodriguezP. (2004). How do memory systems interact? Evidence from human classification learning. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem.82, 324–332.10.1016/j.nlm.2004.05.003
70
PollickF. (2009). “In search of the Uncanny Valley,” in Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, UC Media 2009, eds DarasP.IbarraO. M. (Venice: Springer), 69–78.
71
PriceD. D. (2000). Psychological and neural mechanisms of the affective dimension of pain. Science288, 1769–1772.10.1126/science.288.5472.1769
72
PriceC. J.HumphreysG. W. (1989). The effects of surface detail on object categorization and naming. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A.41, 797–827.10.1080/14640748908402394
73
PruessmannK. P.WeigerM.ScheideggerM. B.BoesingerP. (1999). SENSE: Sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn. Reson. Med.42, 952–962.10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(199911)42:5<952::AID-MRM16<3.0.CO;2-S
74
RameyC. 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.
75
RoeschM. R.CaluD. J.EsberG. R.SchoenbaumG. (2010). All that glitters. Dissociating attention and outcome expectancy from prediction errors signals. J. Neurophysiol.104, 587–595.10.1152/jn.00173.2010
76
RotshteinP.HensonR. N.TrevesA.DriverJ.DolanR. J. (2005). Morphing Marilyn into Maggie dissociates physical and identity face representations in the brain. Nat. Neurosci.8, 107–113.10.1038/nn1370
77
RotshteinP.MalachR.HadarU.GraifM.HendlerT. (2001). Feeling or features: different sensitivity to emotion in high-order visual cortex and amygdala. Neuron32, 747–757.10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00513-X
78
RussellR.BiedermanI.NederhouserM.SinhaP. (2007). The utility of surface reflectance for the recognition of upright and inverted faces. Vision Res.47, 157–165.10.1016/j.visres.2006.11.002
79
RussellR.SinhaP. (2007). Real-world face recognition: the importance of surface reflectance properties. Perception36, 1368–1374.10.1068/p5779
80
RutishauserU.MamelakA. N.SchumanE. M. (2006). Single-trial learning of novel stimuli by individual neurons of the human hippocampus-amygdala complex. Neuron49, 805–813.10.1016/j.neuron.2006.02.015
81
SayginA. P.ChaminadeT.IshiguroH.DriverJ.FrithC. (2011). The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.10.1093/scan/nsr025
82
SchultzJ.PilzK. S. (2009). Natural facial motion enhances the cortical responses to faces. Exp. Brain Res.194, 465–475.10.1007/s00221-009-1721-9
83
SegerC. A.CincottaC. M. (2005). The roles of the caudate nucleus in human classification learning. J. Neurosci.25, 2941–2951.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3401-04.2005
84
SegerC. A.CincottaC. M. (2006). Dynamics of frontal, striatal, and hippocampal systems during rule learning. Cereb. Cortex16, 1546–1555.10.1093/cercor/bhj092
85
SegerC. A.MillerE. K. (2010). Category learning in the brain. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.33, 203–219.10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135546
86
SegerC. A.PetersonE. J.CincottaC. M.Lopez-PaniaguaD.AndersonC. W. (2010). Dissociating the contributions of independent corticostriatal systems to visual categorization learning through the use of reinforcement learning modeling and Granger causality modeling. Neuroimage50, 644–656.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.083
87
SeyamaJ.NagayamaR. S. (2007). The uncanny valley: effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence (Camb.)16, 337–351.10.1162/pres.16.4.337
88
SeyamaJ.NagayamaR. S. (2009). Probing the uncanny valley with the eye size aftereffect. Presence-Teleop. Virt.18, 321–339.10.1162/pres.18.5.321
89
SimmonsA.MatthewsS. C.PaulusM. P.SteinM. B. (2008). Intolerance of uncertainty correlates with insula activation during affective ambiguity. Neurosci. Lett.430, 92–97.10.1016/j.neulet.2007.10.030
90
StarkC. E.SquireL. R. (2000). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) activity in the hippocampal region during recognition memory. J. Neurosci.20, 7776–7781.
91
SternC. E.CorkinS.GonzalezR. G.GuimaraesA. R.BakerJ. R.JenningsP. J.CarrC. A.SugiuraR. M.VedanthamV.RosenB. R. (1996). The hippocampal formation participates in novel picture encoding: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.93, 8660–8665.10.1073/pnas.93.16.8660
92
Studdert-KennedyM.LinemanA. M.HassisK. S.CooperF. R. (1970). Motor theory of speech perception: a reply to Lane’s critical review. Psychol. Rev.77, 234–249.10.1037/h0029078
93
TinwellA.GrimshawM. (2009). “Bridging the uncanny: an impossible traverse?” in Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era, eds. SotamaaO.LugmayrA.FranssilaH.NäränenP.VanhalaJ. (Tampere: ACM), 66–73.
94
TinwellA.GrimshawM.WilliamsA. (2010). Uncanny behaviour in survival horror games. J. Gaming Virtual Worlds2, 3–25.10.1386/jgvw.2.1.3_1
95
TodorovA.EngellA. (2008). The role of the amygdala in implicit evaluation of emotionally neutral faces. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.3, 303–312.10.1093/scan/nsn013
96
Vanni-MercierG.MauguiereF.IsnardJ.DreherJ. C. (2009). The hippocampus codes the uncertainty of cue-outcome associations: an intracranial electrophysiological study in humans. J. Neurosci.29, 5287–5294.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5298-08.2009
97
VolzK. G.SchubotzR. I.von CramonD. Y. (2003). Predicting events of varying probability: uncertainty investigated by fMRI. Neuroimage19(Pt 1), 271–280.10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00122-8
98
VuilleumierP. (2005). How brains beware: neural mechanisms of emotional attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.)9, 585–594.10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.011
99
VuongQ. C.PeissigJ. J.HarrisonM. C.TarrM. J. (2005). The role of surface pigmentation for recognition revealed by contrast reversal in faces and Greebles. Vision Res.45, 1213–1223.10.1016/j.visres.2004.11.015
100
WagerT. D.Feldman BarrettL. (2004). From affect to control: functional specialization of the insula in motivation and regulation. Available at: http://www.affective-science.org/pubs/2004/Wager_Edfest_submitted_copy.pdf [Published online at PsycExtra].
101
WagerT. D.PhanK. L.LiberzonI.TaylorS. F. (2003). Valence, gender, and lateralization of functional brain anatomy in emotion: a meta-analysis of findings from neuroimaging. Neuroimage19, 513–531.10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00078-8
102
WagesR.GrünvogelS. M.GrützmacherB. (2004). How realistic is realism? Considerations on the aesthetics of computer games. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.3166, 216–225.10.1007/978-3-540-28643-1_28
103
WaltersM. L.SyrdalD. S.DautenhaunK.te BoekhorstR.KoayK. L. (2008). Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in a an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Auton. Robots24, 159–178.10.1007/s10514-007-9058-3
104
WeiskopfN.HuttonC.JosephO.TurnerR.DeichmannR. (2007). Optimized EPI for fMRI studies of the orbitofrontal cortex: compensation of susceptibility-induced gradients in the readout direction. MAGMA20, 39–49.10.1007/s10334-006-0067-6
105
WilliamsZ. M.EskandarE. N. (2006). Selective enhancement of associative learning by microstimulation of the anterior caudate. Nat. Neurosci.9, 562–568.10.1038/nn1774
106
XuX.YueX.LescroartM. D.BiedermanI.KimJ. G. (2009). Adaptation in the fusiform face area (FFA): image or person?Vision Res.49, 2800–2807.10.1016/j.visres.2009.08.021
107
YamamotoK.TanakaS.KobayashiH.KozimaH.HashiyaK. (2009). A non-humanoid robot in the “uncanny valley”: experimental analysis of the reaction to behavioral contingency in 2-3 year old children. PLoS ONE4, e6974.10.1371/journal.pone.0006974
Summary
Keywords
uncanny valley, fMRI, categorical perception, virtual reality, avatar, human likeness
Citation
Cheetham M, Suter P and Jäncke L (2011) The Human Likeness Dimension of the “Uncanny Valley Hypothesis”: Behavioral and Functional MRI Findings. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 5:126. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00126
Received
18 March 2011
Accepted
13 October 2011
Published
24 November 2011
Volume
5 - 2011
Edited by
Hans-Jochen Heinze, University of Magdeburg, Germany
Reviewed by
Bernd Weber, Rheinische-Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, Germany; Beatrice De Gelder, Donders Institute, Netherlands
Copyright
© 2011 Cheetham, Suter and Jäncke.
This is an open-access article subject to a non-exclusive license between the authors and Frontiers Media SA, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and other Frontiers conditions are complied with.
*Correspondence: Marcus Cheetham, Department of Neuropsychology, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestrasse 14/Box 25, CH-8050 Zürich, Switzerland. e-mail: m.cheetham@psychologie.uzh.ch
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.