Now on ScienceBlogs: The Winkler County Nurse Trial, An Alleged Massive Conflict of Interest, and Morgellons

Enter to Win

Not Exactly Rocket Science

My small attempt to celebrate science and to make it interesting and fun by giving jargon, confusion and elitism a solid beating with the stick of good writing.

Profile

Ed_Yong.jpgEd Yong is an award-winning British science writer. Not Exactly Rocket Science is his attempt to make the latest scientific discoveries interesting to everyone. He finds writing about himself in the third person strange and unsettling.

What others are saying...

"One of the best sites for in-depth analysis of interesting scientific papers" - The Times

"A consistently illuminating home for long, thoughtful, and thorough explorations of science news" - National Association of Science Writers

"Ed Yong... is made of pure unobtanium and rides TWO Toruks." - Frank Swain

"Ed Yong is better than chocolate, fairy lights, and kittens chasing yarn. That is all." - Christine Ottery

Sign up

Twitter.jpg

Facebook.jpg

Feed.jpg

Book.jpg

Why I blog
An interview with me
The original site • Tell me about you: Part 1 Part 2

Creative Commons License
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.

140-character ramblings

My wife, who makes it all possible

Alice.jpg

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll


Science blogs Other blogs Science stuff

Archives

« Bagheera kiplingi - the mostly vegetarian spider | Main | Guerrilla reading - what former revolutionaries tell us about the neuroscience of literacy »

Monkeys fall into the uncanny valley

Category: Animal behaviourAnimalsMammalsMonkeysNeurosciencePerception
Posted on: October 13, 2009 9:30 AM, by Ed Yong

In the movie industry, special effects and computer-generated imagery are becoming better and more realistic. As they'd improve, you'd expect moviegoers to more readily accept virtual worlds and characters, but that's not always the case. It turns out that people are incredibly put off by images or animations of humans that strive for realism, but aren't quite there yet.

A character like Wall-E is lovable because he's clearly not human but has many human-like qualities and expressions. In contrast, the more realistic CG-characters of Beowulf or The Polar Express are far closer to reality but somehow less appealing because of they haven't tripped the finish line. This phenomenon is called the "uncanny valley" - it's the point where, just before robots or animations look completely real, they trigger revulsion because they almost look human but are just off in subtle but important ways.

Uncanny-valleuy.jpg

This isn't just a quirk of humans - monkeys too fall into the uncanny valley. Shawn Steckenfiner and Asif Ghazanfar from Princeton University showed five macaques a set of faces of real or CGI faces, pulling a few different expressions. They found that all five macaques consistently reacted more negatively to realistic virtual monkey faces than to either real or completely unrealistic ones. They spent much less time looking at the realistic avatars than the other two options, particularly if the faces were moving rather than static.

Monkeyuncannyvalley.jpg

Steckenfiner and Ghazanfar say that the simplest explanations is that the monkeys "are also experiencing at least some of the same emotions" as humans. But for the moment, we can't say if the monkeys felt the queasy disgust that humans do when we fall into the valley, or whether they were simply more attracted to the other two options.

The best way to do that would be to repeat these experiments while looking for possible signs of unease - sweaty skin, dilated pupils or clenched facial muscles, as examples. Steckenfiner and Ghazanfar also want to see if combining fake faces with real voices would put the macaques are greater or lesser ease.

For the moment, the duo hopes that macaques will be able to help us understand why the uncanny valley exists, or what goes on in the brains of people who feel its characteristic revulsion. For a start, it's not about movement. The realistic virtual faces were only marginally less attractive to the monkeys when they moved compared to when they were static.

Steckenfiner and Ghazanfar's favoured idea is that the part of our brains (and those of macaques) responsible for dealing with faces fires up when it sees realistic animations. But the features of these avatars fail to meet the expectations that we've built up through a lifetime of experience. Perhaps their skin colour is slightly off making them look anaemic. Perhaps their skin is too smooth, or their features out of proportion.  Whatever the clash, the idea is that the increased realism lowers our tolerance for these anomalies.

Reference: doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910063106

Twitter.jpg RSS.jpg

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/122147

Comments

1

In my experience, I dunno if "revulsion" is the word. An almost-but-not-quite-right CGI human breaks the immersion of a movie, but doesn't make me stop eating popcorn...

Posted by: Ray Ingles | October 13, 2009 12:55 PM

2

I suspect that part of the problem for movies is that we spend a lot of time watching humans, so we are more likely to notice things that are "off" than we are for a similarly-realistic animation of a robot or an animal.

Posted by: Jefrir | October 13, 2009 1:04 PM

3

Sometimes I wonder how much of the uncanny valley effect contributes to the popularity of zombie movies. We are surrounded by images of almost accurate humans, from statues, to tweaked photos to cg images.

Fascinating article, Ed! I really like that graph too. It's like mapping subjectivity.

Posted by: Glendon Mellow | October 13, 2009 2:58 PM

4

The revulsion might come from reacting to a near human but off face as signaling serious systemic disease.

Posted by: Lilian Nattel | October 13, 2009 9:43 PM

5

I read somewhere that the problem with Polar Express is "dead eyes". I think that we're far better at reading microexpressions than we realize -- but very few, including animators, can break those down into the discrete and describable parts that would be needed for us to recreate them.

Posted by: Leigh Williams | October 14, 2009 1:06 AM

6

I suppose that's exactly the effect described by Asimov in his books. Very interesting.

Posted by: Dominique | October 14, 2009 1:43 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Collective Imagination
Enter to win the daily giveaway
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.