Article published In: Interaction Studies
Vol. 16:2 (2015) ► pp.186–192
A challenge to the study of individual differences in uncanny valley sensitivity
The importance of looking at individual-level response patterns
Published online: 26 November 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.2.04bur
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.2.04bur
Article outline
- 1Do individuals’ response patterns reflect mean response patterns?
- 2Hypothetical data set: An illustration
- 3Conclusions
References
References (8)
Burleigh, T.J. & Schoenherr, J.R. (2015). A reappraisal of the uncanny valley: Categorical perception or frequency-based sensitization? Frontiers in Psychology, 51, 1488.
Burleigh, T.J., Schoenherr, J.R., & Lacroix, G.L. (2013). Does the uncanny valley exist? An empirical test of the relationship between eeriness and the human likeness of digitally created faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 759–771.
Ferrey, A.E., Burleigh, T.J., & Fenske, M.J. (2015). Stimulus-category competition, inhibition, and affective devaluation: A novel account of the uncanny valley. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 249.
MacDorman, K.F. (2005, July). Androids as an experimental apparatus: Why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it? In CogSci-2005 workshop: toward social mechanisms of android science (pp. 106–118).
MacDorman, K.F., & Entezari, S.O. (this volume). Individual differences predict sensitivity to the uncanny valley, Interaction Studies.
MacDorman, K.F., 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.
MacDorman, K.F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 297–337.