Abstract
The term “uncanny valley” goes back to an article of the Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori (Mori 1970, 2005). He put forward the hypothesis that humanlike objects like certain kinds of robots elicit emotional responses similar to real humans proportionate to their degree of human likeness. Yet, if a certain degree of similarity is reached emotional responses become all of a sudden very repulsive. The corresponding recess in the supposed function is called the uncanny valley. The present paper wants to propose a philosophical explanation why we feel empathy with inanimate objects in the first place, and why the uncanny valley occurs when these objects become very humanlike. The core of this explanation—which is informed by the recently developing empirical research on the matter—will be a form of empathy involving a kind of imaginative perception. However, as will be shown, imaginative perception fails in cases of very humanlike objects.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
For a study on the emotional valence of the expressions “eerie” or “creepy” in contrast to “strange”, see Ho 2008.
Lucia Modesto from PDI/Dreamworks quoted in Wischler (2002).
Landmarks were the Humanoid Robots and Humanoids workshop 2005 in Tsukuba/Japan organized by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE-RAS) and the Toward Social Mechanisms in Android Sciences workshop by the Cognitive Science Society 2006 in Vancouver/Canada.
In a later article (MacDorman and Ishiguro 2006) MacDorman himself expresses some doubts on the this matter.
For some more general reservations on morphing as a means to investigate the uncanny valley, see MacDorman/Ishiguro 2006, 308.
It has been argued that the distinction between appearance and behavior is of particular importance (Götz et al. 2003).
This ability seems to be related to the propensity of neonates to mimic facial expressions (Meltzoff and Moore 1983).
Evidence for this is provided, for instance, by studies finding a reliable correlation between deficits in face-based emotion recognition of some emotions with deficits in producing the relevant emotions. For an instructive discussion in the context of simulationist models of emotion recognition, see Goldman and Sripada 2005. That this is, however, an intricate matter is shown by the fact that Goldman and Sripada also mention some evidence to the contrary.
References
Bartneck, C., et al. (2005). Robot abuse—a limitation of the media equation. Proceedings of the Interact 2005 Workshop on Agent Abuse, Rome.
Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press.
Budd, M. (1992). On the foundations of representational arts. Mind, 101, 195–198. doi:10.1093/mind/101.401.195.
Caramazza, A., Martin, A. (Eds.) (2003). The organisation of conceptual knowledge in the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology 20 (special issue).
Currie, G. (1995). Imagination and simulation: Aesthetics meets cognitive science. In A. Stone & M. Davies (Eds.), Mental simulation: Evaluations and applications (pp. 151–169). Oxford: Blackwell.
Damasio, A. R. (1989). Time-locked multiregional retro activation: A systems-level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33, 25–62.
Etcoff, N. (2000). Survival of the prettiest. New York: Anchor Books.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133–187.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science when wrong. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in reason and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.
Goldman, A. I., & Sripada, C. S. S. (2005). Simulationist models of face-based emotion recognition. Cognition, 94, 193–213.
Götz, J. et al. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behaviour to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Robot and Human Interactive Communication, doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2003.1251796.
Hanson, D. (2006). Expanding the aesthetic possibilities for humanlike robots. In Proc. IEEE Humanoid Robotics Conference, special session on the Uncanny Valley, Tskuba, Japan.
Ho, C.-C. et al. (2008). Human emotion and the uncanny valley: A GLM, MDS, and ISOMAP analysis of robot video ratings. Proceedings of the Third ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Amsterdam.
Horgan, T., Tienson, J. (2002). The intentionality of phenomenology and the phenomenology of intentionality. In: D. Chalmers (Ed.). Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings. Oxford: Oxford UP, 520–33.
James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9, 188–205.
Johnson-Laird, P., & Oatley, K. (2004). Cognitive and social construction in emotions. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 458–475). New York: Guilford Press.
Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: the origins of ‘theory of mind’. Psychological Review, 94, 412–426.
MacDorman, K. F. (2005a). Androids as experimental apparatus: Why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it? Paper presented at the CogSci-2005 Workshop: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, Stresa, Italy.
MacDorman, K. F. (2005b). Mortality salience and the uncanny valley, international conference on humanoid robots, Tsukuba, Japan, doi: 10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573600.
MacDorman, K. F. (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, Canada.
MacDorman, K. F. et al. (2005). Assessing human likeness by eye contact in an android testbed. Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, Italy.
MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in social and cognitive science research. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 297–337.
Maibom, H. L. (2007). The presence of others. Philosophical Studies, 132, 161–190.
Martin, A., & Chao, L. L. (2001). Semantic memory and the brain: Structure and processes. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 194–201.
Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development, 54, 702–709.
Minato, T. et al. (2005). Does gaze reveal the human likeness of an android? Development and Learning, doi: 10.1109/DEVLRN.2005.1490953.
Mori, M (1970). Bukimi no tani, Energy 7(4), 33–35, translated into English by K.F. MacDorman and T. Minato (2005). Proceedings of the Humanoids-2005 workshop: Views of the Uncanny Valley, Tsukuba, Japan.
Mori, M (2005). On the uncanny valley. Proceedings of the Humanoids-2005 workshop: Views of the Uncanny Valley, Tsukuba, Japan.
Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2000). A cognitive theory of pretense. Cognition, 74, 115–147.
O’Shaughnessy, B. (2002). Consciousness and the World. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. (Eds.). (2005). Grounding cognition. The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking, Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Poe, E. A. (1846). The philosophy of composition. Graham’s Magazine, April, 1846, 163–167.
Prinz, J. J. (2005). The return of concept empiricism. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 679–699). Oxford: Oxford.
Ramey, C. (2005). The uncanny valley of similarities concerning abortion, baldness, heaps of sand, and humanlike robots. Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots: Views of the Uncanny Valley, Tsukuba, Japan.
Ramey, C. (2006). An inventory of reported characteristics for home computers, robots, and human beings: Applications for android science and the uncanny valley. Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 Long Symposium ‘Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science’, Vancouver, Canada.
Rhodes, G., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (Eds.). (2002). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary cognitive and social perspectives, Westport. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94, 23–41.
Rumiati, R. I., & Caramazza, A. (Eds.). (2005). The multiple functions of sensory-motor representation. Cognitive Psychology 22 (special issue).
Rutherford, M., et al. (2006). The perception of Animacy in young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 36, 983–992.
Scholl, B., & Tremoulet, P. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 299–309.
Slater, M., et al. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 1(1), e39. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.
Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Stark, W., et al. (2001). Representation of human vision in the brain: How does human perception recognize images. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 10, 123–151.
Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-belief. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Walton, K. (2002). Depiction, perception, and imagination: Responses to Richard Wollheim. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60, 27–35.
Wischler, L. (2002). Why is this man smiling? Digital animators are closing in on the complex system that makes faces come alive. Wired 10.06. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/face_pr.html. Cited 21 Mar 2008.
Wollheim, R. (1998). On pictorial representation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56, 217–233.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Misselhorn, C. Empathy with Inanimate Objects and the Uncanny Valley. Minds & Machines 19, 345–359 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-009-9158-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-009-9158-2