Categorization-based stranger avoidance does not explain the uncanny valley effect

The uncanny valley hypothesis predicts that an entity appearing almost human risks eliciting cold, eerie feelings in viewers. Categorization-based stranger avoidance theory identifies the cause of this feeling as categorizing the entity into a novel category. This explanation is doubtful because stranger is not a novel category in adults; infants do not avoid strangers while the category stranger remains novel; infants old enough to fear strangers prefer photographs of strangers to those more closely resembling a familiar person; and the uncanny valley's characteristic eeriness is seldom felt when meeting strangers. We repeated our original experiment with a more realistic 3D computer model and found no support for categorization-based stranger avoidance theory. By contrast, realism inconsistency theory explains cold, eerie feelings elicited by transitions between instances of two different, mutually exclusive categories, given that at least one category is anthropomorphic: Cold, eerie feelings are caused by prediction error from perceiving some features as features of the first category and other features as features of the second category. In principle, realism inconsistency theory can explain not only negative evaluations of transitions between real and computer modeled humans but also between different vertebrate species.

[1]  Naomi H. Feldman,et al.  The influence of categories on perception: explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. , 2009, Psychological review.

[2]  Karl F. MacDorman,et al.  Familiar faces rendered strange: Why inconsistent realism drives characters into the uncanny valley , 2016, Journal of vision.

[3]  Annie Lang,et al.  The Motivation Activation Measure (MAM): How Well Does MAM Predict Individual Differences in Physiological Indicators of Appetitive and Aversive Activation? , 2007 .

[4]  O. Pascalis,et al.  Is Face Processing Species-Specific During the First Year of Life? , 2002, Science.

[5]  S. Harnad Category Induction and Representation , 1987 .

[6]  D. Berlyne Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value , 1970 .

[7]  M. Treviño,et al.  Noradrenergic ‘Tone’ Determines Dichotomous Control of Cortical Spike-Timing-Dependent Plasticity , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[8]  Roger K. Moore A Bayesian explanation of the ‘Uncanny Valley’ effect and related psychological phenomena , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[9]  Bruce Mangan The uncanny valley as fringe experience , 2015 .

[10]  Yuki Yamada,et al.  Categorization difficulty is associated with negative evaluation in the “uncanny valley” phenomenon , 2013 .

[11]  K. MacDorman,et al.  Reducing consistency in human realism increases the uncanny valley effect; increasing category uncertainty does not , 2016, Cognition.

[12]  K. Okanoya,et al.  Infants prefer the faces of strangers or mothers to morphed faces: an uncanny valley between social novelty and familiarity , 2012, Biology Letters.

[13]  G. Bronson The development of fear in man and other animals. , 1968, Child development.

[14]  R. Plomin,et al.  Genetic and Environmental Etiology of Social Behavior in Infancy. , 1979 .

[15]  Takahiro Kawabe,et al.  When categorization-based stranger avoidance explains the uncanny valley: A comment on MacDorman and Chattopadhyay (2016) , 2016, Cognition.