Historical, Cultural, and Aesthetic Aspects of the Uncanny Valley

Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 122)

Abstract

Artificial entities and systems are often designed according to human expectations, simulating human appearance, and behavior to improve social interactions between people and machines. The Uncanny Valley – first described by the roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970 – causes an eerie feeling when people observe or interact with an anthropomorphic artificial character. This effect distorts smooth interaction or an emotional connection between humans and artificial figures. Associations between eeriness and human-like appearance or behavior can be seen in literature and art throughout all epochs of mankind’s history. This article focuses on examples from the human past that correlate with the eerie impact of artificial, human-like figures. A review of the history reveals that the Uncanny Valley is connected to aspects that have rarely been discussed: intentions, aesthetics, and cultural context. From the ancient Greek myth of Prometheus, fantasies of Pygmalion, demons of the Dark Ages, horror figures from romanticism up to the androids and zombies of today’s entertainment – human-like appearances as such or those in our imagination trigger both astonishment and discomfort. Therefore, we will see that the Uncanny Valley is jointly responsible for the negative image of artificial characters and continues to prevent a smooth social interaction until today.

Keywords

Uncanny valley Androids Cultural and historical context Aesthetic function Media 

References

  1. Adamson, Andrew, and Vicky Jenson. 2001. Shrek. United States: DreamWorks, Pacific Data Images DreamWorks Animation.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Hassan, Ahmad Yussuf. 1977. The Arabic text of Al-Jazari’s “A compendium on the theory and practice of the mechanical arts”. Journal for the History of Arabic Science 1: 47–64.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, William S. 1972. Ovid’s metamorphoses, American Philological Association series, vol. 2. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aquinas, Thomas V. 2013. Summa theologica. Vol. 1. COSIMO CLASSICS.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, Brooks. 2011. Many culprits in fall of a family film. New York Times.Google Scholar
  6. Baron, Stefan, Henrik Widman, and Lars Lundström. 2012. Real humans (Äkta människor). Matador Film AB, SVT, DR, YLE.Google Scholar
  7. Baum, L. Frank. 2008. The wonderful wizard of Oz. Oxford: Oxford Children’s Classics University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bouc, Angelina. 2014. Men who dressup as rubber dolls star on secrets of the living dolls. guardiantv.com.Google Scholar
  9. Braemer, Edith A. 1959. Goethes Prometheus und die Grundpositionen des Sturm und Drang, Beiträge Zur Deutschen Klassik. Weimar: Arion Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Breazeal, Cynthia L. 2004. Designing sociable robots. A Bradford book. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan, Kyle. 2011. The biggest problem with the Tintin movie might be Tintin himself. New York Magazine.Google Scholar
  12. Cameron, James. 1984. The Terminator. United States: Orion Pictures, Hemdale Film Corporation, Pacific Western Productions.Google Scholar
  13. Channel4, 4OD. 2014. The secret of the living dolls. U.K.: 4OD – Channel 4.Google Scholar
  14. Cheetham, Marcus, Pascal Suter, and Lutz Jäncke. 2011. The human likeness dimension of the “uncanny valley hypothesis”: Behavioral and functional MRI findings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5: 126. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheetham, Marcus, Ivana Pavlovic, Nicola Jordan, Pascal Suter, and Lutz Jancke. 2013. Category processing and the human likeness dimension of the uncanny valley hypothesis: Eye-tracking data. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 108. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke, Arthur C. 1968. 2001: A space odyssey. London/New York: Hutchinson (UK)/New American Library (US).Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, Florette, Sheldon Solomon, Molly Maxfield, Tom Pyszczynski, and Jeff Greenberg. 2004. Fatal attraction: The effects of mortality salience on evaluations of charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders. Psychological Science 15: 846–851. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00765.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dautenhahn, Kerstin. 1999. Robots as social actors: Aurora and the case of Autism. Proceedings CT99, The Third International Cognitive Technology Conference. San Francisco (CA), US. 359: 374.Google Scholar
  19. Dick, Philip K. 1968. Do androids dream of electric sheep? Time. Orion.Google Scholar
  20. Dinter, Annegret. 1979. Der Pygmalion-Stoff in der europäischen Literatur, Studien Zum Fortwirken Der Antike. Heidelberg: Winter Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Duffy, Brian R. 2003. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42: 177–190. doi:10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fong, Terrence, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42: 143–166. doi:10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freedman, Carl. 2000. Critical theory and science fiction, Literary studies: Science fiction. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Freud, Sigmund. 1919. Das Unheimliche. Imago. Zeitschrift für Anwendung der Psychoanalyse auf die Geisteswissenschaften.Google Scholar
  25. Gassen, Hans-Günther, and Sabine Minol. 2012. Die Menschen Macher: Sehnsucht nach Unsterblichkeit, Erlebnis Wissenschaft. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Gendolla, Peter. 1992. Anatomien der Puppe: zur Geschichte des Maschinen – Menschen bei Jean Paul, ETA Hoffmann, Villiers de l’Isle-Adam und Hans Bellmer. Vol. 113. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
  27. Giles, Lionel. 1925. Taoist teachings from the book of Lieh Tzǔ, Wisdom of the East series. London: J. Murray.Google Scholar
  28. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. 2013. Prometheus: Dramatisches Fragment. Berlin: Contumax-Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Graham, A. Charles. 1990. The book of Lieh-Tzu: A classic of the Tao. UNESCO collection of representative works. Chinese series. J. Murray. Columbia University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  30. Green, Robert D., Karl F. MacDorman, Chin-Chang Ho, and Sandosh Vasudevan. 2008. Sensitivity to the proportions of faces that vary in human likeness. Computers in Human Behavior 24: 2456–2474. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenberg, Jeff, Arndt, Jamie, Linda Simon, Tom Pyszczynski, and Sheldon Solomon. 2000. Proximal and distal defenses in response to reminders of one’s mortality: Evidence of a temporal sequence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26: 91–99. doi:10.1177/0146167200261009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanson, David. 2005. Expanding the aesthetic possibilities for humanoid robots. IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots 24–31.Google Scholar
  33. Hanson, David. 2006. Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 16–20.Google Scholar
  34. Hanson, David, Andrew Olney, and S. Prilliman. 2005. Upending the uncanny valley. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence 20: 24/1728.Google Scholar
  35. Heckmann, Herbert. 1982. Die andere Schöpfung: Geschichte der frühen Automaten in Wirklichkeit und Dichtung. Frankfurt am Main: Umschau.Google Scholar
  36. Hesiod. 1914. The Homeric hymns, and Homerica, ed. & trans. Hugh G. Evelyn-White. Cambridge (Mass.), US: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
  37. Hill, Donald R. 1996. A history of engineering in classical and medieval times. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Hoffmann, E.T.A. 2008. Der Sandmann. Ditzingen: Reclam.Google Scholar
  39. Holt, Nick. 2007. Guys and dolls. UK: BBC.Google Scholar
  40. Hurard, Oriane. 2013. Lars Lundström, Autor der Serie “Real Humans”: “Ein Spiegel unserer eigenen Existenz”. arte.tv.Google Scholar
  41. Jauch, Ursula Pia. 1998. Jenseits der Maschine: Philosophie, Ironie und Ästhetik bei Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709–1751). München: C. Hanser Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. Jentsch, Ernst. 1906. Psychiatrisch-Neurologische Wochenschrift. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease: 22: 195–205.Google Scholar
  43. Jordan, Leo. 1910. Pars Secunda Philosophiae, seu Metaphisica. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie. 23: 338–373.Google Scholar
  44. Koreis, Voyen. 2008. Čapek’s R.U.R. 2014.Google Scholar
  45. Kormann, Eva. 2006. Künstliche Menschen oder der moderne Prometheus. Der Schrecken der Autonomie. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur neueren Germanistik 59: 73.Google Scholar
  46. Kubrick, Stanley. 1968. 2001: A space odyssey. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Beverly Hills (CA), US.Google Scholar
  47. LaGrandeur, Kevin. 2010. Do medieval and renaissance androids presage the posthuman? CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 12. doi: 10.7771/1481-4374.1553.
  48. Lang, Fritz. 1927. Metropolis. Germany: UFA Film.Google Scholar
  49. Lecouteux, Claude. 1999. Histoire des Vampires, Autopsie d’un mythe. Paris: Editions Imago.Google Scholar
  50. Lee, Sau-lai, Kiesler, S., Ivy Yee-man Lau, and Chi-Yue Chiu. 2005. Human mental models of humanoid robots. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2767–2772. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Science Press. doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2005.1570532.
  51. Lieh-Tzu, and Richard Wilhelm. 1980. Das Wahre Buch Vom Quellenden Urgrund. Stuttgart: Zenodot Verlagsgesellscha.Google Scholar
  52. MacDorman, Karl F. 2005a. Mortality salience and the uncanny valley. In 5th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, 2005., 3:399–405. IEEE Publication Database. doi: 10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573600.
  53. MacDorman, Karl F. 2005b. Androids as an experimental apparatus: Why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it? Android Science 3: 106–118.Google Scholar
  54. MacDorman, Karl F., Sandosh K. Vasudevan, and Chin-Chang Ho. 2008. Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI and Society 23: 485–510. doi:10.1007/s00146-008-0181-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. MacDorman, Karl F., Robert D. Green, Chin-Chang Ho, and Clinton T. Koch. 2009. Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior 25: 695–710. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maul, Stefan M. 2012. Das Gilgamesch-Epos. 5th ed. C.H.Beck.Google Scholar
  57. Mettrie, Julien Offray de La. 1990. L’ homme machine.Google Scholar
  58. Michaels, Adrian. 2014. Secrets of the living dolls, Channel 4, Review. The Telegraph.Google Scholar
  59. Misselhorn, Catrin. 2009. Empathy with inanimate objects and the uncanny valley. Minds and Machines 19: 345–359. doi:10.1007/s11023-009-9158-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mori, Masahiro. 1970. The Uncanny Valley. Energy 7: 33–35.Google Scholar
  61. Mori, Masahiro. 1989. The Buddha in the Robot. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  62. Müller, Götz. 1989. Gegenwelten: Die Utopie in der deutschen Literatur. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  63. Murray, Charles Shaar. 2002. Horror as Dr X builds his creator. The Telegraph, February.Google Scholar
  64. Nadarajan, Gunalan. 2007. Islamic automation: A reading of Al-Jazari’ s the book of knowledge of ingenious mechanical devices (1206). Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation 1(803): 1–16. Manchester: FSTC Limited.Google Scholar
  65. Needham, J., and L. Wang. 1956. Science and civilisation in China: Volume 2. History of scientific thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Newman, William R. 2005. Promethean ambitions: Alchemy and the quest to perfect nature, American politics and political economy series. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Pollick, Frank E. 2010. In search of the uncanny valley. In User centric media, eds. Petros Daras, Oscar Mayora Ibarra, Ozgur Akan, Paolo Bellavista, Jiannong Cao, Falko Dressler, Domenico Ferrari, et al., 40, 69–78. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Lecture notes of the institute for computer sciences, social informatics and telecommunications engineering. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12630-7.
  68. Reichardt, Jasia. 1978. Robots: Fact, fiction, and prediction. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  69. Reid, Thomas, Gideon Yaffe, and Ryan Nichols. 2014. Thomas reid. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  70. Riek, Laurel D., Tal-Chen Rabinowitch, Bhismadev Chakrabarti, and Peter Robinson. 2009. How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction – HRI ’09, 245. New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1514095.1514158.
  71. Rose, Steve. 2011. Tintin and the uncanny valley: When CGI gets too real. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  72. Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review 3: 16–20. doi:10.1007/BF02322211. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rosheim, Mark E. 1997. In the footsteps of Leonardo (articulated anthropomorphic robot). IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 4: 12–14. doi:10.1109/100.591641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Horace Coignet, and Jacqueline Waeber. 1997. Pygmalion: Scène lyrique. Paris: Université-Conservatoire de musique.Google Scholar
  75. Sakaguchi, Hironobu, and Motonori Sakakibara. 2001. Final Fantasy – The Spirits Within. Colombia Pictures.Google Scholar
  76. Saygin, Ayse Pinar, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2009. The perception of humans and robots : Uncanny hills in parietal cortex. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society, ed. R. Catrambone. Cognitive Science Society: 2004–2008.Google Scholar
  77. Scassellati, Brian Michael. 2001. Foundations for a theory of mind for a humanoid robot. Cambridge: MIT Press. doi:10.1037/e446982006-001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schneider, Edward, and Shanshan Yang. 2007. Exploring the uncanny valley with Japanese video game characters. In Intelligence, ed. Baba Akira, 546–549. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
  79. Schwab, Gustav. 2011. Sagen des klassischen Altertums. Leipzig: Anaconda Verlag.Google Scholar
  80. Scott, Ridley. 1982. Blade Runner. Warner Bros, Burbank (CA), US.Google Scholar
  81. Scott, Ridley. 1992. Blade runner – The director’s cut. Warner Bros, Burbank (CA), US.Google Scholar
  82. Shelley, Mary. 1818. Frankenstein or the modern prometheus. London: Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor, & Jones.Google Scholar
  83. Singer, P.W. 2009. Wired for war: The robotics revolution and conflict in the twenty-first century, A Penguin book. Technology/military science. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  84. Spielberg, Steven. 2011. The Adventures of Tintin. Paramount Pictures (North America), Columbia Pictures (International).Google Scholar
  85. Steckenfinger, Shown A., and Ghazanfar, Asif A. 2009. Monkey visual behavior falls into the uncanny valley. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 18362–18366. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910063106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Strandh, Sigvard. 1992. Die Maschine: Geschichte, Elemente. Weltbild-Verlag: Funktion Ein enzyklopädisches Sachbuch.Google Scholar
  87. Styles, Ruth. 2014. Secrets of men who dress up as rubber dolls revealed in new documentary. dailymail.co.uk.Google Scholar
  88. Thiele, Eckhard. 1988. Karel Čapek. Vol. 1257. Reclam: Leipzig.Google Scholar
  89. Thorpe, William H. 1944. Some problems of animal learning. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 156: 70–83. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1944.tb00374.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tinwell, Angela, Mark Grimshaw, Debbie Abdel Nabi, Andrew Williams, Debbie Abdel Nabi, Tinwell Angela, and Grimshaw Mark. 2011. Uncanny valley in virtual characters 1 facial expression of emotion and perception of the uncanny valley in virtual characters Angela Tinwell. Computers in Human Behavior 44: 1–34. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.018. Elsevier Ltd.Google Scholar
  91. Valverde, Sarah Hatheway. 2012. The modern sex doll-owner: A descriptive analysis. San Luis Obispo: California Polytechnic State University.Google Scholar
  92. Völker, Klaus. 1994. Künstliche Menschen: Dichtungen und Dokumente über Golems, Homunculi, lebende Statuen und Androiden. Suhrkamp Verlag KG: Phantastische Bibliothek.Google Scholar
  93. Von Bingen, Hildegard, and Priscilla Throop. 1998. Hildegard von Bingen’s Physica: The complete English translation of her classic work on health and healing. Rochester (Vermont), US: Inner Traditions/Bear.Google Scholar
  94. Wachowski, Andy, and Larry Wachowski. 1999. The Matrix. United States, Australia: Warner Bros. Pictures, Roadshow Entertainment.Google Scholar
  95. Wells, Herbert G. 1927. Mr. Wells reviews a current Film: He takes issue with this German conception of what the city of one hundred years hence will be like. The New York Times Company, 17 Apr.Google Scholar
  96. Wells, Simon. 2011. Mars needs Moms. Walt Disney Animation Studios.Google Scholar
  97. Weschler, Lawrence. 2006. Wired: Why is this man smiling ? Wired 10.06: 1–6.Google Scholar
  98. Westbrook, Caroline. 2014. C4’s secrets of the living dolls pulls in and freaks out viewers in equal measure. metro.co.uk.Google Scholar
  99. Zebrowitz, Leslie. 2001. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives: Evolutionary, cognitive, cultural and motivational perspectives. New York.Google Scholar
  100. Zemeckis, Robert. 2004. The Polar Express. United States: Warner Bros. Pictures, Castle Rock Entertainment, Shangri-La Entertainment, ImageMovers, Playtone, Golden Mean.Google Scholar
  101. Zlatev, Jordan. 2001. The epigenesis of meaning in human beings, and possibly in robots. Minds and Machines 11: 155–195. doi:10.1023/A:1011218919464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Visualization and Interactive Systems (VIS)University of Stuttgart/Stuttgart Media UniversityStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations