Cognitive conflict as possible origin of the uncanny valley

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Volumn 2017-October, Issue , 2017, Pages 1599-1603

  Weis, Patrick P ^a   Wiese, Eva ^a  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COSTS; HUMAN ENGINEERING; LANDFORMS; ROBOTICS;

CATEGORICAL PERCEPTION; COGNITIVE COSTS; HUMAN LIKENESS; POSITIVE AFFECTS; SOCIAL ROBOTICS; TRACKING TECHNIQUES; UNCANNY VALLEY;

ERGONOMICS;

EID: 85028030036     PISSN: 10711813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1177/1541931213601763     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Burleigh, T. J., & Schoenherr, J. R. (2015). A reappraisal of the uncanny valley: categorical perception or frequency-based sensitization? Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01488
2. Cheetham, M., Pavlovic, I., Jordan, N., Suter, P., & Jancke, L. (2013). Category Processing and the human likeness dimension of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis: Eye-Tracking Data. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00108
3. Cheetham, M., Suter, P., & Jäncke, L. (2011). The human likeness dimension of the "uncanny valley hypothesis": behavioral and functional MRI findings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 126.
4. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864.
5. Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 226-241.
6. Freeman, J. B., & Johnson, K. L. (2016). More Than Meets the Eye: Split-Second Social Perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(5), 362-374.
7. Kätsyri, J., Förger, K., Mäkäräinen, M., & Takala, T. (2015). 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, 6. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392592/
8. MacDorman, K. F., and Green., R. D., Ho, C.-C., & Koch, C. T. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 695-710.
9. Martini, M. C., and Gonzalez., C. A., & Wiese, E. (2016). Seeing Minds in Others - Can Agents with Robotic Appearance Have HumanLike Preferences? PLoS ONE, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146310
10. Mathur, M. B., & Reichling, D. B. (2016). Navigating a social world with robot partners: A quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley. Cognition, 146, 22-32.
11. Milborrow, S., Morkel, J., & Nicolls, F. (2010). The MUCT land-marked face database. Pattern Recognition Association of South Africa, 201(0). Retrieved from http://www.dip.ee.uct.ac.za/~nicolls/publish/sm10-prasa.pdf
12. Mori, M., and MacDorman., K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98-100.
13. Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who Sees Human?: The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336
14. Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., Reber, R., Musch, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion, 189-217.