1.
Lehrstuhl und Institut für Arbeitswissenschaft der RWTH Aachen
Direktor:
Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing. Christopher Marc Schlick
Telefon: 0241 80-99 440
Telefax: 0241 80-92 131
info@iaw.rwth-aachen.de
www.iaw.rwth-aachen.de
Dienstgebäude:
Bergdriesch 27 – D-52062 Aachen
Postanschrift:
D-52056 Aachen
Master
Thesis
Robot-human interaction: Investigation of the
uncanny valley using different designed robot alternatives
Angefertigt von
cand.ing. Alesia St. Ivanova
Matr.-Nr.: 328510
Betreuer: Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing. Christopher M. Schlick
Mitbetreuen der
wissenschaftl. Mitarbeiter: Dipl.-Ing. Christopher Brandl
Aachen, den 22.03.2013

2. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.2
/
56
Contents
1. Introduction
___________________________________________________________
p.3
2. Research
______________________________________________________________
p.5
1) Previous
studies
and
service
robots
i. Care-­‐o-­‐bot
ii. PAMM
iii. RIBA
iv. Taizo
v. Exoskeletons
2) The
Uncanny
valley
3) Performance
assessment
3. The
aim
______________________________________________________________
p.23
4. Design
concept
________________________________________________________
p.23
5. Design
project
_________________________________________________________
p.25
6. Pretest
design
_________________________________________________________
p.33
1) Participant
and
procedure
2) Visualizations
7. Pretest
results
and
analyses
______________________________________________
p.48
8. Conclusions
___________________________________________________________
p.53
9. References
____________________________________________________________
p.55

3. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.3
/
56
Introduction
More
than
30%
of
the
medical
expenses
all
over
the
world
can
be
related
to
elderly
people.
And
these
expenses
are
increasing
drastically
nowadays.
By
the
year
2030
the
number
of
60-­‐
year-­‐old
people
will
have
doubled.
Wheelchair
dependents
have
difficulty
moving
from
a
seat,
to
their
wheelchair
and
back
without
a
caregivers
help
or
other
lift
mechanisms.
[1]
While
1
in
3
nurses
are
expected
to
develop
back
injuries
while
moving
and
lifting
patients
and
50%
of
non-­‐ambulatory
patients
fall
to
the
floor,
all
aspects
of
Service
robots
(e.g.
the
HLPR
Chair)
provide
for
independent
patient
mobility
especially
on
lifting
and
placing
patients
to
eliminate
or
significantly
reduce
this
back
injury
issue.
With
fewer
caregivers
and
more
elderly,
there
is
a
need
for
improving
these
technical
aids
for
providing
independent
assistance.
[2]
It
is
envisioned
that
in
the
near
future
personal
mobile
robots
will
be
assisting
people
in
their
daily
lives.
An
essential
characteristic
shaping
the
design
of
personal
robots
is
the
fact
that
they
must
be
accepted
by
human
users.
In
general,
it
seems
natural
to
assume
that
the
more
human
looking
the
robots
are,
the
more
likely
they
are
to
provoke
the
usual
responses
people
show
to
each
other.
However,
even
subtle
flaws
in
appearance
and
movement
seem
strange
and
eerie
in
very
humanlike
robots.
This
paper
explores
the
acceptance
of
mobile
personal
service
robots,
by
focusing
on
the
psychological
effects
of
robot
appearance.
The
level
of
comfort
the
robot
causes
to
human
subjects
is
analyzed
according
to
the
effects
of
robot
design.
The
information
gained
from
surveys
taken
by
40
to
60
human
subjects
can
be
used
to
obtain
a
better
understanding
of
what
characteristics
make
up
personal
robot
appearances
that
are
most
acceptable
to
the
human
users.
The
results
gained
from
this
study
should
yield
useful
insights
into
how
to
calibrate
robot
appearance
so
that
users
of
service
robots
in
future
will
be
less
disaffected
due
to
design
feature
limitations
which
do
not
meet
their
initial
expectations.
This
study
includes
a
research
about
service
robot
design,
users’
preferences
and
the
influence
of
robot
appearance.
An
overview
of
the
Mori’s
“Uncanny
valley”
hypothesis
is
introduced,
as
well.
Furthermore,
design
alternatives
development
is
presented.
Finally,
pretest
results
and
conclusion
for
further
studies
are
introduced.

4. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.4
/
56
Problem
definition
The
empirical
studies
investigating
the
importance
of
the
“uncanny
valley”
all
have
in
common
the
low
number
of
factor
levels
of
robot
appearances
or
the
equidistance
in
the
intervals
between
them.
For
example
in
[3]
they
used
only
three
“Peoplebot”
robot
versions
in
their
video-­‐based
HRI
trials
to
support
a
portion
of
the
left
hand
side
of
Mori’s
theoretically
proposed
“uncanny
valley”
diagram.
In
[4]
only
highly
realistic
robots
were
used
to
empirically
test
the
right
hand
side
of
the
hypothesis
by
the
following
statements:
a)
highly
realistic
robots
are
liked
less
than
real
humans
and
b)
the
highly
realistic
robot’s
movement
decreases
its
likeability.
According
to
MacDorman’s
analyses
on
Mori’s
theory
for
the
uncanny
valley
it
is
“possible
to
produce
a
safe
familiarity
by
a
non-­‐humanlike
design”,
concerning
the
robot
appearance
and
its
acceptance.
More
prolonged
experiments,
using
finer
gradations
of
robot
appearances
and
behavior
are
required
in
order
to
give
more
data
sample
points
from
the
diagram
and
to
provide
more
extensive
evidence,
which
can
then
be
used
to
refine
the
parameters
which
define
human
perception
of
robot
appearance
and
how
these
can
be
applied
to
developing
principles
for
robot
aesthetics
in
different
user
environments.

5. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.5
/
56
Research
In
this
section
several
service
robots
are
presented,
some
of
them
already
in
use,
while
others
still
in
a
development
phase.
Also
experiments
testing
the
social
acceptance
of
robots
with
varied
human-­‐likeness,
the
importance
of
tentative
acceptance
properties
together
with
the
results
from
these
studies,
are
described.
Some
of
the
researched
studies
explore
the
interactions
between
humans
and
mobile
personal
robots,
by
focusing
on
the
psychological
effects
of
robot
behavior
patterns
during
task
performance.
The
aim
of
the
research
is
to
gain
some
guidelines
for
robot
design
from
past
studies
in
this
area.
1. Care-­‐O-­‐bot
Care-­‐O-­‐bot
was
designed
and
implemented
by
Fraunhofer
IPA,
Stuttgart.
The
Care-­‐O-­‐bot
is
a
mobile
service
robot,
which
has
the
capability
to
perform
fetch
and
carry
and
various
other
supporting
tasks
in
home
environments.
Main
emphasis
is
laid
on
integrating
communicational
and
social
features,
like
video
telephone,
automatic
emergency
calls
and
other
interactive
communication
(Figure
1).
Figure
1.
Care-­‐o-­‐bot®3
in
action
[1]
Care-­‐O-­‐bot®
3 was
released
relatively
soon
in
2008,
after
over
10
years
of
development,
and
excels
in
its
user-­‐interaction
oriented
design.
Nevertheless,
it
is
equipped
with
leading
edge
technology,
which
is
highly
integrated
into
a
very
compact
form.
This
convergence
of
design
and
technology
accounts
for
the
idea
of
Care-­‐O-­‐bot®
3
being
a
product
vision
for
a
robot
butler,
combining
technological
aspects
with
a
compact
and
user
friendly
design.
The
primary
interface
between
Care-­‐O-­‐bot®
3 and
the
user
consists
of
a
tray
attached
to
the
front
of
the
robot,
which
carries
objects
for
exchange
between
the
human
and
the
robot.
The
tray
includes
a
touch
screen
and
retracts
automatically
when
not
in
use.
The
basic

6. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.6
/
56
concept
developed
was
to
define
two
sides
of
the
robot:
“Working
side”
and
“Serving
side”.
The
concept
behind
using
the
tray
to
interact
with
the
user
is
to
reduce
possible
users’
fears
of
mechanical
parts
by
having
smooth
surfaces
and
a
likable
appearance
(Figure
1.a).
On
the
technical
side,
it
is
much
easier
to
ensure
collision
free
interaction
with
the
static
tray
than
with
a
robotic
arm
moving
freely
in
3-­‐D-­‐space.
Using
these
described
interaction
concept,
Care-­‐O-­‐bot®3
enables
the
safe
executing
of
fetch
and
carry
tasks
and
thus
provides
the
potential
to
operate
a
mobile,
manipulating
robot
safely
in
public
environments.
Care-­‐O-­‐bot®
3
is
driven
by
four
wheels.
Each
wheel’s
orientation
and
rotational
speed
can
be
set
individually.
The
wheeled
drive
was
preferred
to
legged
locomotion
because
of
safety
(no
risk
of
falling)
and
stability
during
manipulation.
[5]
Figure
1.a).
Care-­‐o-­‐bot®3
“two-­‐sides”
concept
[5]
2. PAMM
PAMM
(Personal
Aid
for
Mobility
and
Monitoring)
is
intended
to
assist
the
elderly
living
independently
or
in
senior
Assisted
Living
Facilities.
It
provides
physical
support
and
guidance,
and
it
monitors
the
user's
basic
vital
signs.
Figure
2
summarizes
the
PAMM
Concept
design
[6].
For
models
released
in
the
early
21st
century
their
appearance
was
closely
to
machine-­‐
looking,
which
is
very
simplistic
and
does
not
intend
to
impress
with
any
modern
or
futuristic
body
(Figure.2.a),
while
the
latest
Walking
aid
devices
impress
with
smoother
shapes
and
nice
look,
associated
with
a
personal
vehicle
(Figure
2.b).
Their
newer
technology
of
driving
allows
using
only
2
wheels
instead
of
3
or
4.

7. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.7
/
56
Figure
2.
PAMM
System
Concept
Figure
2.a).
PAMM
devices
from
2000’s
[7]

8. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.8
/
56
Figure
2.b).
PAMM
devices
from
Toyota,
2008
[8]
3. RIBA
RIBA
(Robot
for
Interactive
Body
Assistance)
is
said
to
be
the
first
robot
that
can
lift
up
or
set
down
a
real
human
(up
to
61kg/134lbs)
from
or
to
a
bed
or
wheelchair.
RIBA
does
this
using
a
combination
of
its
very
strong
human-­‐like
arms
and
by
novel
tactile
guidance
methods
using
high-­‐accuracy
tactile
sensors.
RIBA
was
developed
by
integrating
RIKEN's
control,
sensor,
and
information
processing
and
TRI's
material
and
structural
design
technologies.
It
might
look
like
a
cross
between
a
snowman
and
a
badly-­‐designed
toy
polar
bear,
but
the
nursing
fraternity
should
appreciate
this
robot
that
can
lift
patients
(Figure.3)
in
and
out
of
beds
and
wheelchairs
on
command,
while
at
the
same
time
saving
nurses’
backs
and
improving
patient
care
and
safety.
[9]
The
robot’s
body
is
covered
with
soft
materials
and
the
elbow
and
waist
joints
are
isolated,
making
RIBA
safe
for
physical
interactions
with
humans.
This
softness
also
contributes
to
patient
comfort
when
they
are
being
lifted.
A
teddy
bear
shape
was
deliberately
used
to
put
patients
at
ease
and
to
give
a
friendly,
non-­‐threatening,
appearance.

9. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.9
/
56
Figure
3.
Photograph
of
RIBA-­‐I
and
RIBA-­‐II
lifting
a
patient
4. Taizo
The
National
Institute
of
Advanced
Industrial
Science
and
Technology
(AIST)
and
Ibaraki
Prefectural
Health
Plaza
in
Japan
are
developping
‘Taizo’,
a
humanoid
robot
designed
to
lead
the
elderly
in
physical
exercises.Taizo
(Figure
4.),
which
is
a
play
on
the
word
“taisou”
meaning
“calisthenics”,
stands
72cm
tall
and
is
dressed
in
a
velvety
space
suit.
He
sports
a
clown-­‐like
grin
that
is
supposed
to
look
silly
to
put
the
older
generation,
who
are
often
a
little
frightened
by
new
technology,
at
ease.
[10]
Figure
4.
Taizo

10. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.10
/
56
5. Exoskeletons
An
exoskeleton
is
a
distinctive
kind
of
robot
to
be
worn
as
an
overall,
effectively
supporting
or,
in
some
cases
substituting
for,
the
user’s
own
movements.
The
development
of
exoskeletons
can
lead
to
important
changes
in
the
rehabilitation
of
disabled
people
by
introducing
an
alternative
to
wheelchairs.
Exoskeletons
can
be
an
efficient
tool
in
the
restoration
of
upper
limb
functions,
and
they
can
support
therapists
and
caregivers
in
tasks
that
require
major
physical
effort.
The
functionality
of
exoskeleton
can
easily
be
extended
by
a
“disabled
person
integrated
IT
environment”,
described
by
authors.
Exoskeletons
can
also
be
adapted
to
the
needs
of
severely
ill
or
aged
people.
Exoskeletons
can
be
divided
into
two
categories:
those
for
all
four
extremities
(arms/legs)
and
those
for
the
lower
extremities
only
(Figure
5.).
Exoskeletons
are
controlled
by
the
user’s
movements
and
do
not
need
any
external
control
terminal
(with
the
exception
of
a
service
terminal).
The
main
parts
are:
the
frame;
the
power
system,
including
engines,
actuators
and
batteries;
and
the
control
system
with
sensors.
Figure
5.
Examples
of
medical
exoskeletons:
A)
HAL5
–
version
for
four
extremities;
B)
ReWalk

11. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.11
/
56
Figure
6.
Robot
suits
HAL-­‐5
The
robotics
geeks
at
Honda
have
developed
an
exoskeleton
that
is
worn
like
shoes
to
support
the
body
and
protect
the
joints,
something
the
automaker
says
could
reduce
injuries
on
assembly
lines
but
also
might
help
the
elderly
get
around
more
easily.
The
device
resembles
a
bicycle
seat
joined
to
a
pair
of
shoes
and
fits
between
the
legs
to
help
the
user
walk,
crouch
and
stand
without
excessive
stress
on
the
hips,
knees
and
ankles.
Honda
is
testing
the
"walking
assist
device"
(Figure
7.b)
at
a
vehicle
assembly
line
in
Sayama,
Japan,
and
says
robo-­‐legs
could
help
anyone
who
spends
a
lot
of
time
on
their
feet.
More
than
that,
it
could
help
the
elderly
and
infirm
by
making
it
easier
to
get
around.
In
contrast
to
the
complexity
of
the
HAL
(Figure
6.),
the
Honda
devices’
simplicity
may
be
their
strength
(Figure
7.b.)
For
example,
U3-­‐X
personal
mobility
prototype
with
its
compact
size
and
one-­‐wheel-­‐drive
personal
mobility
prototype
was
designed
to
be
friendly
to
the
user
and
people
around
it
by
making
it
easier
for
the
rider
to
reach
the
ground
from
the
footrest
and
placing
the
rider
on
roughly
the
same
eye
level
as
other
people
or
pedestrians.
[11]
Figure
7.a.
Left
to
right:
U3-­‐X
personal
mobility
prototype,
Bodyweight
Support
Assist Device,
Stride
Management
Support
Assist
Device,
ASIMO
humanoid
robot

12. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.12
/
56
Figure
7.b.
Robo-­‐legs
from
HONDA
[12]
Tendencies
in
service
robot
design
All
of
the
researched
robots
above
show
today’s
tendencies
in
human-­‐robot
interaction
design
–
a
combination
of
high
technological
execution,
smooth
shapes
and
user
friendly
interface,
materials
depend
on
their
purpose
and
use
in
daily
life.
For
the
current
study
very
important
guidelines
can
be
gained
from
medical
purpose
robots
such
as
Riba
or
Taizo,
because
they
were
designed
in
order
to
make
people
feel
comfortable
and
friendly
in
their
companion.
This
would
help
us
to
choose
a
similar
approach
in
designing
a
head
and/or
a
face
for
our
experimental
robots
and
investigate
this
part
of
the
uncanny
valley
graph
which
is
more
human-­‐like.
The
other
devices
like
PAMM,
Care-­‐o-­‐bot
and
exoskeletons
are
shown
especially
for
their
driving
systems
–
how
do
they
execute
movements,
tasks
and
how
they
approach
to
users.
Obviously
the
more
human-­‐like
is
the
robot,
the
more
complicated
“walking”
system
is.
The
machine-­‐looking,
such
as
PAMM
and
Care-­‐o-­‐bot
use
wheels,
and
even
more
machine-­‐
looking
one
would
have
chains
like
in
a
tank.
This
kind
of
machine
parts
make
the
robots
more
maneuverable
and
smooth
in
movements,
while
walking-­‐resembling
robots
are
still
in
development
for
improving
realistic
movements.

13. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.13
/
56
The
Uncanny
valley
“Climbing
a
mountain
is
an
example
of
a
function
that
does
not
increase
continuously:
a
person's
altitude
does
not
always
increase
as
the
distance
from
the
summit
decreases
owing
to
the
intervening
hills
and
valleys.
I
have
noticed
that,
as
robots
appear
more
humanlike,
our
sense
of
their
familiarity
increases
until
we
come
to
a
valley.
I
call
this
relation
the
“uncanny
valley”.”
Masahiro
Mori
Recently
prosthetic
hands
have
improved
greatly,
and
we
cannot
distinguish
them
from
real
hands
at
a
glance.
Some
prosthetic
hands
attempt
to
simulate
veins,
muscles,
tendons,
finger
nails,
and
finger
prints,
and
their
color
resembles
human
pigmentation.
But
this
kind
of
prosthetic
hand
is
too
real
and
when
one
notices
it
is
prosthetic,
they
have
a
sense
of
strangeness.
So
if
we
shake
the
hand,
we
are
surprised
by
the
lack
of
soft
tissue
and
cold
temperature.
In
this
case,
there
is
no
longer
a
sense
of
familiarity.
It
is
uncanny.
In
mathematical
terms,
strangeness
can
be
represented
by
negative
familiarity,
so
the
prosthetic
hand
is
at
the
bottom
of
the
valley.
So
in
this
case,
the
appearance
is
quite
human
like,
but
the
familiarity
is
negative.
This
is
the
uncanny
valley.
Figure
8.
The
Uncanny
Valley
graph
As
a
robot
designer,
Mori
graphed
what
he
saw
as
the
relation
between
human
likeness
and
perceived
familiarity:
familiarity
increases
with
human
likeness
until
a
point
is
reached
at
which
deviations
from
human
appearance
and
behavior
create
unnerving
effect.
This
he
called
the
uncanny
valley.
According
to
Mori,
movement
amplifies
the
effect
(Figure
8.)
In
the
World
Expo
held
in
Osaka
2009
were
displayed
robots
with
a
very
elaborate
design.
For
example,
one
robot
has
29
artificial
muscles
in
the
face
to
make
humanlike
facial
expressions.
According
to
the
designer,
laughing
is
a
kind
of
sequence
of
face
distortions,
and
the
distortion
speed
is
an
important
factor.
If
the
speed
is
cut
in
half,
laughing
looks
unnatural.
This
illustrates
how
slight
variations
in
movement
can
cause
a
robot,
puppet,
or
prosthetic
hand
to
tumble
down
into
the
uncanny
valley.

14. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.14
/
56
The
author
hopes
to
design
robots
or
prosthetic
hands
that
will
not
fall
into
the
uncanny
valley.
So
he
recommends
designers
to
take
the
first
peak
as
a
goal
in
building
robots
rather
than
the
second.
Although
the
second
peak
is
higher,
there
is
a
far
greater
risk
of
falling
into
the
uncanny
valley.
They
predict
that
it
is
possible
to
produce
a
safe
familiarity
by
a
nonhumanlike
design.
This
is
a
good
point
to
take
into
a
consideration.
A
good
example
is
glasses.
Glasses
do
not
resemble
the
real
eyeball,
but
this
design
is
adequate
and
can
make
the
eyes
more
charming.
So
designers
should
follow
this
principle
when
design
prosthetic
eyes.
An
elegant
prosthetic
hand
can
be
created
-­‐
one
that
must
be
fashionable.
Artist
who
makes
statues
of
Buddha
created
a
model
of
a
human
hand
that
is
made
from
wood.
The
fingers
bend
at
their
joints.
The
hand
has
no
finger
print,
and
it
assumes
the
natural
color
of
wood.
But
it
still
looks
beautiful
and
there
is
no
sense
of
the
uncanny.
[13]
Christoph
Bartneck,
Takayuki
Kanda,
Hiroshi
Ishiguro,
and
Norihiro
Hagita
(Members
of
IEEE)
conducted
a
study
which
attempted
to
empirically
test
two
aspects
of
Mori’s
hypothesis.
First,
they
were
interested
in
the
degree
to
which
highly
realistic
androids
were
perceived
differently
from
a
human.
The
uncanny
valley
hypothesis
predicts
that
androids
would
be
perceived
as
less
human-­‐like
and
less
likeable
compared
to
humans.
To
test
this
hypothesis,
they
used
Hiroshi
Ishiguro
and
his
robotic
copy
named
“Geminoid
HI-­‐
1”
(Figure
9).
Also,
they
wanted
to
test
whether
a
more
humanlike
android
would
be
perceived
as
more
likeable
compared
to
a
less
human-­‐like
robot.
Accordingly,
they
made
a
small
alteration
to
Geminoid
HI-­‐1
to
make
it
appear
less
humanlike.
Figure
9.
Hiroshi
Ishiguro
and
his
robotic
double
Geminoid
HI-­‐1
Second,
they
were
interested
in
the
effect
of
the
android’s
movement.
Mori’s
hypothesis
predicts
that
movement
intensifies
the
users’
perception
of
an
android.
A
moving
android
would
be
perceived
differently
from
an
inert
android.

15. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.15
/
56
In
summary,
the
following
three
hypotheses
were
interesting
for
the
study:
1.
Androids
that
are
distinguishable
from
humans
will
be
liked
less
than
humans.
2.
A
fully
moving
android
will
be
liked
differently
compared
to
an
android
that
is
limited
in
its
movements.
3.
Androids
with
different
levels
of
anthropomorphism
will
be
liked
differently.
They
conducted
a
3
(anthropomorphism)
x
2
(movement)
experiment
in
which
anthropomorphism
was
the
within
participants
factor
and
movement
was
the
between
participants
factor.
The
anthropomorphism
factor
had
three
conditions:
masked
android,
android,
and
human.
The
movement
factor
had
two
conditions:
full
movement
and
limited
movement.
The
participants
in
this
study
were
19
men
and
13
women
in
their
early
20’s
attending
Japanese
universities
in
the
Kansai
area.
The
male
and
female
participants
were
distributed
approximately
even
across
the
experimental
conditions.
They
were
not
exposed
to
any
previous
study
in
the
laboratory.
This
study
was
conducted
shortly
before
the
official
release
of
the
Geminoid
HI-­‐1
and
hence
they
were
not
exposed
to
the
considerable
media
exposure
that
the
Geminoid
HI-­‐1
received.
The
participants
were
welcomed
and
then
asked
to
fill
in
a
questionnaire.
They
were
seated
on
a
chair
that
was
placed
one
meter
away
from
the
android/person.
Afterwards
the
experimenter
introduced
them
to
each
other
without
explicitly
labeling
Ishiguro
as
a
human
and
the
androids
as
robots.
Conclusions
from
the
study:
Against
Mori’s
prediction,
androids
that
were
distinguishable
from
humans
were
not
liked
less
than
humans.
The
results
showed
that
the
participants
were
able
to
distinguish
between
the
human
stimulus
and
the
android
stimuli.
The
human
was
rated
as
being
significantly
more
human-­‐like
compared
to
the
two
androids.
However,
the
ratings
for
likeability
were
not
significantly
different.
This
result
does
not
support
Mori’s
hypothesis.
Two
possible
interpretations
could
be
possible.
On
the
one
hand,
there
really
could
be
no
difference
between
the
likeability
of
humans
and
that
of
androids.
On
the
other
hand,
likeability
could
be
a
more
complex
phenomenon.
They
speculate
that
the
participants
might
have
used
different
standards
to
evaluate
the
likeability
of
the
human
and
the
androids.
As
a
robot,
the
displayed
android
might
have
been
likeable
to
the
same
degree
as
the
human
was
likeable
as
a
human;
however,
the
expectations
for
these
two
categories
might
have
been
different.
The
results
of
this
study
cannot
confirm
Mori’s
hypothesis
of
the
Uncanny
Valley.
The
robots’
movements
and
their
level
of
anthropomorphism
may
be
complex
phenomena
that
cannot
be
reduced
to
two
factors.
Movement
contains
social
meanings
that
may
have
direct
influence
on
the
likeability
of
a
robot.
The
robot’s
level
of
anthropomorphism
does
not
only
depend
on
its
appearance
but
also
on
its
behavior.
A
mechanical-­‐looking
robot
with
appropriate
social
behavior
can
be
anthropomorphized
for
different
reasons
than
a
highly
humanlike
android.
Again,
Mori’s
hypothesis
appears
to
be
too
simplistic.
[4]

16. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.16
/
56
Figure
10.
Graph
showing
results
of
MacDorman
and
Hiroshi
Ishiguro
study
on
the
Uncanny
valley
Another
study
from
MacDorman
and
Ishiguro
is
presented
here.
The
average
ratings
of
45
Indonesian
participants
on
scales
of
human
likeness,
familiarity,
and
eeriness
are
presented
for
the
above
figure
(Figure
10).
The
images
morph
from
a
mechanical-­‐looking
humanoid
on
the
left
to
an
android
in
the
center
to
a
human
being
on
the
right.
For
the
given
images,
they
reveal
an
uncanny
region,
both
on
the
strange-­‐familiar
scale
and
on
the
eeriness
scale.
In
the
follow-­‐up
discussion
David
Han-­‐son
argued
that
a
valley
of
eeriness
was
not
inevitable
for
a
specific
range
of
human
likeness.
He
claims
that,
across
the

17. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.17
/
56
spectrum
of
human
likeness,
it
is
possible
to
design
androids
that
are
not
uncanny.
In
a
follow-­‐up
experiment
in
which
intermediate
images
were
designed,
adapting
more
attractive,
cartoon-­‐like
features,
rather
than
simply
morphed,
Hanson
eliminates
the
valley
from
his
results.
In
addition,
Hanson
notes
that
very
abstract
robots
and
cosmetically
atypical
people
can
be
uncanny,
although
they
are
far
from
the
posited
region
of
the
valley
in
terms
of
human
likeness.
Do
Hanson’s
results
mean
that
the
uncanny
valley
does
not
exist?
They
may
suggest
that
the
uncanny
valley
is
not
inevitable
or
that
designers
with
finesse
can
moderate
it
in
situations
that
involve
still
images.
Nevertheless,
human
beings
do
seem
to
be
highly
sensitive
to
imperfections
in
near
humanlike
robots,
both
in
their
looks
and
movements,
which
is
why
androids
are
potentially
very
useful
in
studying
human
perception.
Furthermore,
only
limited
conclusions
can
be
drawn
from
ratings
of
still
images,
which
are
static,
modern
inventions
appearing
after
human
beings
evolved.
For
instance,
cartoon
images
can
be
aesthetically
pleasing,
but
if
real
people
could
exist
with
the
same
proportions,
they
would
be
considered
freaks.
There
is
no
way
to
evaluate
whether
a
still
image
is
responding
as
predicted,
because
they
cannot
respond
at
all.
[14]

18. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.18
/
56
Performance
assessment
The
effectiveness
of
service
robots
cannot
be
assessed
only
by
performance
criteria
typically
found
for
industrial
robots.
The
performance
criteria
of
service
robots
lie
within
the
satisfaction
of
their
users.
Therefore,
it
is
necessary
to
measure
the
users’
perception
of
service
robots,
since
these
cannot
be
measured
within
the
robots
themselves.
Below
are
some
of
the
main
criteria
used
in
these
measurements.
Social
acceptance
What
can
be
considered
to
be
the
important
criteria
for
social
acceptance
of
robots
in
homes
and
health
care?
It
will
most
likely
vary
with
both
application
area
and
culture.
One
example
of
such
criteria
might
be
the
size
of
the
robot,
where
several
aspects
have
been
reported.
One
such
consideration
states
that
the
robot
has
to
be
smaller
than
human
in
order
not
to
"dominate"
the
human
user.
This
criteria
(size)
can
be
developed
further
in
the
context
of
home
care
for
handicapped
people,
where
it
is
stated
that
the
robot
has
to
defend
its
space
though
its
functionality,
since
a
large
appliance
will
compete
with
the
other
support
equipment
that
is
already
in
the
care
environment
(such
as
wheel
chairs,
respiratory
equipment
etc.).
If
the
robot
size
is
too
big,
it
will
probably
simply
not
be
used.
Examples
of
similar
properties
that
will
be
important
to
look
at
in
the
social
acceptance
perspective
are
technical
issues
such
as:
• Weight
-­‐
the
impression
of
moving
weight
• Speed
-­‐
the
speed
of
the
robot’s
movement
• Agility
-­‐
the
speed
of
limb
movements
• Reliability
-­‐
the
functional
stability
of
the
robot
• There
are
also
more
emotional
and
possibly
culture
dependent
issues
such
as:
• Anthropomorphism
-­‐
should
the
robot
look
like
a
human
or
a
machine?
• Social
behavior
-­‐
which
behavior
characteristics
are
important
for
the
acceptance
of
the
robot?
• Autonomy
-­‐
should
the
robot
act
with
or
without
user
involvement?
• Distance
-­‐
how
big
should
be
the
minimum
distance
between
human
and
robot
(something
which
clearly
is
culturally
dependent)?
• Safety
and
security
-­‐
how
safe
does
a
person
feel
in
relation
to
the
robot?
• Reliability
-­‐
can
you
trust
the
robot
to
perform
the
tasks
and
do
this
in
the
right
way?
Taken
together,
these
variables
will
affect
the
user
in
one
way
or
another.
It
is
therefore
necessary
for
the
developers
and
designers
to
find
out
which
of
these
aspects
that
are
important
to
consider,
and
second,
how
the
properties
affect
the
social
acceptance
of
the
robot.
Below
some
of
them
are
described
in
more
details.
Anthropophormism
Anthropomorphism
refers
to
the
attribution
of
a
human
form,
human
characteristics,
or
human
behavior
to
nonhuman
things
such
as
robots,
computers,
and
animals.
Even
if
it
is
not
the
intention
of
the
design
of
a
certain
robot
to
be
as
humanlike
as
possible,
it
still
remains
important
to
match
the
appearance
of
the
robot
with
its
abilities.
A
too
anthropomorphic
appearance
can
evoke
expectations
that
the
robot
might
not
be
able
to
fulfill.
If,
for
example,
the
robot
has
a
human-­‐shaped
face
then
the
naive
user
will
expect

19. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.19
/
56
that
the
robot
is
able
to
listen
and
to
talk.
To
prevent
disappointment
it
is
necessary
for
all
developers
to
pay
close
attention
to
the
anthropomorphism
level
of
their
robots.
Anthropomorphism
is
a
constant
pattern
in
human
cognition
and
the
interaction
of
a
human
with
a
robot
(or
any
kind
of
machine)
cannot
completely
avoid
it.
According
to
Mori,
the
so-­‐
called
uncanny
valley
would
suggest
to
either
stay
in
the
area
of
very
non-­‐human,
toy-­‐like
robots,
or
to
create
a
robot
that
appears
to
be
almost
perfectly
human-­‐like,
because
a
robot
in
between
may
provoke
rather
fearful
responses.
[15].
Human-­‐like
appearance
is
likely
to
trigger
expectations
that
go
beyond
the
capabilities
of
a
machine.
But
being
humanoid
in
appearance
does
hardly
suffice
to
meet
the
expectancy
of
humanlike
reactions.
[16]
Likeability
There
is
a
growing
body
of
research
which
indicates
that
people
often
make
important
judgments
within
seconds
of
meeting
another
person,
sometimes
quite
unaware
of
both
the
obvious
and
subtle
signs
that
may
be
influencing
their
judgments.
Since
computers,
and
thereby
robots
in
particular,
are
to
some
degree
treated
as
social
actors,
it
can
be
assumed
that
people
are
able
to
judge
robots
in
a
similar
way.
Jennifer
Monahan
complemented
her
“liking”
question
with
5-­‐point
semantic
differential
scales:
nice/awful,
friendly/unfriendly,
kind/unkind,
and
pleasant/unpleasant,
because
these
judgments
tend
to
demonstrate
considerable
variance
in
common
with
“liking”
judgments.
Monahan
later
eliminated
the
kind-­‐unkind
and
pleasant-­‐unpleasant
items
in
her
own
analysis
since
they
did
not
load
sufficiently
in
a
factor
analysis
that
also
included
items
from
three
other
factors.
The
Cronbach’s
Alpha
of
0.68
therefore
relates
only
to
this
reduced
scale.
She
also
included
concepts
of
physical
attraction,
conversational
skills,
and
other
orientations,
which
might
become
an
element
of
the
questionnaire
series.
In
particular,
physical
attraction
might
require
additional
conceptual
and
social
consideration,
since
it
may
also
entail
sexuality.
Perceived
Safety
Safety
is
a
key
issue
for
robots
interacting
with
humans.
The
issue
has
received
considerable
attention
in
the
robotics
literature,
both
in
systems
and
standards
established
for
industrial
robots
and
for
service
robots
intended
for
use
in
the
home.
Examples
of
design-­‐concerning
category
of
safety
is
the
mechanical
redesign
which
includes
using
a
whole-­‐body
robot
visco-­‐
elastic
covering,
the
use
of
spherical
and
compliant
joints,
and
distributed
parallel
actuation
mechanisms
to
lower
the
effective
inertia
of
the
robot
near
the
end
effector.
Perceived
safety
describes
the
user’s
perception
of
the
level
of
danger
when
interacting
with
a
robot,
and
the
user’s
level
of
comfort
during
the
interaction.
Achieving
a
positive
perception
of
safety
is
a
key
requirement
if
robots
are
to
be
accepted
as
partners
and
co-­‐
workers
in
human
environments.
Perceived
safety
and
user
comfort
have
rarely
been
measured
directly.
Instead,
indirect
measures
have
been
used—
the
measurement
of
the
affective
state
of
the
user
through
the
use
of
physiological
sensors,
questionnaires,
and
others.
That
is,
instead
of
asking
subjects
to
evaluate
the
robot,
researchers
frequently
use
affective
state
estimation
or
questionnaires
asking
how
the
subject
feels
in
order
to
measure
the
perceived
safety
and
comfort
level
indirectly.
Questionnaires
can
be
used
to
compare
different
configurations
of
a
robot
(Figure
11).
The
results
may
then
help
the
developers
to
choose
one
option
over
the
other.
In
the
future,
this
set
of
questionnaires
could
be
extended
to
also
include
the
believability
of
a
robot,
the

20. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.20
/
56
enjoyment
of
interacting
with
it,
and
the
robot’s
social
presence.
However,
the
perceptions
of
humans
are
not
stable.
The
more
humans
get
used
to
the
presence
of
robots,
the
more
their
knowledge
and
expectations
might
change.
The
questionnaires
can
therefore
only
offer
a
snapshot
and
it
is
likely
that
if
the
experiment
would
be
repeated
in
twenty
years,
it
would
yield
different
results.
[17]
Figure
11.
An
example
of
a
measurement
questionnaire
about
robot’s
factors

21. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.21
/
56
Below
the
results
of
a
questionnaire
on
robot
acceptance
are
extracted.
An
interesting
observation
they
noticed
is
a
tendency
towards
considering
a
display
of
a
facial
expression
as
relatively
unimportant.
More
physical
factors
such
as
size
and
degree
of
anthropomorphic
design
seem
to
be
regarded
as
neither
extremely
important
nor
unimportant.
From
another
part
of
the
questionnaire
the
following
properties
seem
to
have
some
inherent
importance:
• The
robot
should
be
a
multipurpose
tool;
• Easy
to
instruct;
• It
has
to
behave
correctly;
• It
should
be
safe
to
use
and
induce
confidence;
• Properties
seem
to
be
of
lesser
importance:
• Having
a
personality;
• Being
humanlike;
• Engage
in
social
contact;
Among
the
more
indecisive
properties
as:
"Autonomy",
"Intelligence",
and
"Appropriate
Size"
there
are
no
indications
of
a
general
trend.
It
is
important
to
note
that
a
low
score
does
not
disqualify
a
certain
property
as
unimportant,
but
rather
that
the
ones
with
a
general
higher
score
are
judged
as
being
more
important
for
instigating
a
positive
feeling
towards
the
robot.
In
the
next
part
of
the
questionnaire
they
turned
the
issue
around,
asking
for
the
properties
that
were
most
important
in
creating
a
negative
feeling
towards
the
robot.
The
properties
chosen
were
in
this
part
also
chosen
for
their
possible
negative
connotation.
The
observable
tendencies
are
in
this
case
fewer
and
less
obvious.
The
clearest
triggers
of
negative
feelings
resulted
to
the
following
properties:
• It
does
not
understand
the
user;
• It
is
difficult
to
understand
its
actions;
• It
is
complicated
to
use;
Less
clear,
but
still
given
high
grades
by
several
subjects
were
the
following
factors:
• The
robot
stops
unexpectedly;
• The
robot
looks
heavy;
• The
robot
often
asks
the
user
how
to
proceed;
More
astonishing
might
be
that
a
machine-­‐like
appearance
of
the
robot
seems
to
generate
more
positive
feelings
than
a
human-­‐like
or
an
animal-­‐like.
Overall
most
of
the
factors
in
this
part
of
the
questionnaire
were
indicated
to
be
important
factors,
and
there
was
no
real
visible
trend
to
judge
any
one
property
as
more
or
less
important.
The
interpretation
of
this
is
that
most
of
these
properties
will
give
the
user
a
negative
feeling
towards
the
robot,
unless
they
are
tended
to
in
the
design.
[18]

22. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.22
/
56
Research
conclusions
Human-­‐robot
interaction
(HRI)
is
a
fairly
new
branch
of
HCI
(human-­‐computer
interaction)
and
has
gained
a
lot
of
attention
recently.
Concerning
a
mobile
service
robot,
additional
aspects
with
respect
to
user
acceptance
and
their
expectations
have
to
be
considered.
So,
what
are
people’s
views
on
the
role
of
an
intelligent
service
robot
in
their
home?
Different
studies
have
been
conducted
to
investigate
people’s
attitudes
towards
domestic
robots.
Syrdal
[19]
carried
out
a
survey
in
order
to
examine
adults’
attitudes
towards
an
intelligent
service
robot.
Participants
were
21-­‐60
years
old,
while
most
of
them
were
in
the
age
of
21-­‐
30.
Results
show
that
most
of
the
participants
were
positive
towards
the
idea
of
an
intelligent
service
robot
and
view
it
as
a
domestic
machine
or
smart
intelligent
equipment
that
can
be
‘controlled’,
but
is
intelligent
enough
to
perform
typical
household
tasks.
On
the
other
hand,
Scopelliti
[20]
investigated
people’s
representation
of
domestic
robots
across
three
different
generations
and
found
that
while
young
people
tend
to
have
positive
feelings
towards
domestic
robots,
elderly
people
were
more
frightened
of
the
prospect
of
a
robot
in
the
home.
Studies
within
the
European
project
COGNIRON
assessed
people’s
attitudes
towards
robots
via
questionnaires
following
live
human-­‐robot
interaction
trials
[21].
Responses
from
28
adults
(the
majority
in
the
age
range
26-­‐45)
indicated
that
a
large
proportion
of
participants
were
in
favor
of
a
robot
companion,
but
would
prefer
it
to
have
a
role
of
an
assistant
(79%),
machine/appliance
(71%)
or
servant
(46%).
Few
wanted
a
robot
companion
to
be
a
‘friend’.
The
majority
of
the
participants
wanted
the
robot
to
be
able
to
do
household
tasks.
Also,
participants
preferred
a
robot
that
is
predictable,
controllable,
considerate
and
polite.
Humanlike
communication
was
desired
for
a
robot
companion,
however,
human-­‐like
behavior
and
appearance
were
less
important.
These
three
studies,
conducted
in
different
European
countries,
agreed
with
respect
to
the
desired
role
of
a
service
robot
in
the
home:
an
assistant
able
to
carry
out
useful
tasks,
and
not
necessarily
a
‘friend’
with
human-­‐like
appearance.
These
considerations
led
to
the
definition
of
a
robot
companion
which
must
a)
be
able
to
perform
a
range
of
useful
tasks
or
functions,
and
b)
carry
out
these
tasks
or
functions
in
a
manner
that
is
socially
acceptable
and
comfortable
for
people
it
shares
the
environment
with
and/or
it
interacts
with.
[19]
This
creates
the
following
challenge
for
the
development
of
such
a
robot:
we
have
to
bridge
the
gap
between
functionality,
which
goes
along
with
hard
technological
properties
of
e.g.
an
industrial
robot,
and
social
acceptance,
which
goes
along
with
the
comfortable
design
of
e.g.
an
electronic
pet.
[16]

23. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.23
/
56
The
aim
The
aim
of
this
thesis
is
to
investigate
the
user’s
familiarity
of
different
design
alternatives
for
service
robots
according
to
the
“uncanny
valley”
hypothesis.
For
this
purpose
a
number
of
approximately
seven
factor
levels
of
the
robot
appearance
varying
in
human-­‐likeness
were
designed.
Also
a
questionnaire
comparing
the
different
alternatives
was
created
for
the
test
subjects.
An
empirical
study
design
was
developed
and
a
pretest
was
carried
out.
Pretest
results
of
the
influences
of
the
familiarity
and
likeness
will
be
given
in
a
graph.
Then
a
comparison
between
the
resulted
graph
and
the
one
of
the
uncanny
valley
completes
the
thesis.
Design
concept
The
concept
of
the
design
approach
in
this
study
is
based
on
the
idea
to
cover
as
many
significant
points
of
the
uncanny
valley
graph
as
possible
(Figure
12.).
For
each
point
a
different
appearance
alternative
is
designed.
Starting
with
an
industrial
machine-­‐like
robot,
each
gets
more
human-­‐like
than
the
previous.
This
is
the
expected
ranking
order
given
to
them
by
the
authors,
according
to
the
“uncanny
valley”
hypothesis.
Research
questions
Related
to
the
above
issues,
the
present
study
addressed
the
following
main
research
questions:
What
is
the
importance
of
robot
appearance
for
less
human-­‐looking
robots?
Do
people
prefer
more
human-­‐like
appearance
in
robots
that
they
interact
with?
Does
gender
factor
in
both
sides
–
robots’
and
test
subjects’,
influences
the
judgments
of
the
participants?
How
many
design
alternatives
are
needed
in
order
to
get
more
complete
results?

24. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.24
/
56
Figure
12.
A
simplified
graph
of
the
uncanny
valley,
on
which
the
concept
of
current
study
is
based
Design
requirements
and
limitations
According
to
the
concept
above,
the
development
of
robot
appearance
should
follow
a
line,
instead
of
a
curve,
excluding
the
hypothetic
valley
of
the
graph.
With
this
approach
in
each
design
should
be
added
a
human-­‐like
feature,
enough
to
make
it
distinguishable
as
a
more
human-­‐like
than
the
previous
one
(Figure
13.).
The
graph
starts
with
a
robot
which
is
relatively
machine-­‐like
in
appearance.
It
will
have
no
overtly
human-­‐like
features.
Then
the
development
will
go
through
a
humanoid
-­‐
a
robot
which
is
not
realistically
human-­‐like
in
appearance
and
is
readily
perceived
as
a
robot
by
human
users.
However,
it
may
possess
some
human-­‐like
features,
which
are
usually
stylized,
simplified
or
cartoon-­‐like
versions
of
the
human
equivalents,
including
some
or
all
of
the
following:
a
head,
facial
features,
eyes,
ears,
eyebrows,
arms,
hands,
legs.
The
important
principle
that
should
be
kept
in
the
design
line
is
that
any
feature,
if
possessed
in
a
robot
appearance,
should
be
more
human-­‐like
in
the
next
robot.
Both
may
also
have
wheels
for
locomotion
or
use
legs
for
walking.
The
graph
should
end
with
an
android
-­‐
a
robot
which
exhibits
appearance
which
is
as
close
to
a
real
human
appearance
as
technically
possible.
The
working
definition
of
robot
appearance
for
humanoid
robots
used
in
this
study
is
based
on
the
definitions
for
animated
agents’
appearances
adopted
by
Gong
and
Nass
[22],
and
for
android
robots
from
Mac-­‐Dorman
and
Ishiguro
[15].

25. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.25
/
56
Figure
13.
Line
of
design
alternatives
development
For
a
better
user’s
recognition
each
design
alternative
should
be
shown
in
identical
environment
performing
the
same
tasks.
In
this
way
the
robot’s
purpose
will
be
clear
for
the
participants,
so
they
won’t
be
confused
by
the
different
appearances.
The
styling
of
the
sketches
and
the
models
respectively,
incl.
colors,
shapes,
materials,
should
be
also
identical
in
the
developed
alternatives,
because
if
not,
there
might
be
unwanted
impact
on
the
users’
impression
about
them.
For
example,
if
a
box
shape
is
used
for
a
head
in
the
machine-­‐like
alternative,
then
a
box
shaped
head
should
be
used
in
a
similar
way
for
the
more
human-­‐like
alternative.
Design
project
Below
are
the
initial
sketches
for
six
of
the
alternatives.
The
performing
task
for
each
one
is
fetching
and
carrying
a
glass
and
a
bottle
of
water.
The
seventh
level
of
human
likeness
is
actually
a
real
human.
Note
that
for
humanoid
and
android
parts
of
the
graph
authors
have
developed
a
second
level
factor
alternatives
for
each
robot
–
a
male
and
a
female
gender.
This
altogether
makes
eleven
alternative
visualizations.

26. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.26
/
56
Figure
14.
Initial
sketches
for
design
alternative
Nr.1
Alternative
#1
The
main
concept
here
is
to
use
basic
shapes
(sphere,
cylinder)
and
simple
cuts
for
creating
a
robot
which
is
closer
to
an
object
executing
the
task
–
carrying
a
bottle.
What
is
crucial
here
is
that
this
object
should
look
like
it
is
moving
itself,
and
not
just
standing
(as
the
participants
are
going
to
see
only
a
picture,
not
an
animation).
That
is
why
appearance
#1
should
definitely
have
wheels,
or
chains,
and
if
wheels
–
then
preferably
more
than
two,
for
more
confidence
in
its
stability.

27. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.27
/
56
Figure
15.
Initial
sketches
for
design
alternative
Nr.2
Alternative
#2
Here
the
concept
resembles
the
one
of
Care-­‐o-­‐bot
–
the
two-­‐side
concept
(working
and
serving
side).
That
means
assuming
there
is
at
least
one
hand
or
some
other
part
for
fetching
objects.
Still,
it
is
not
an
android
or
a
humanoid,
but
its
silhouette
could
remind
of
a
short
waiter.
A
display
for
serving
side
is
preferable,
as
well.
Movement
could
be
two-­‐
or
three-­‐wheels,
but
again
because
of
stability
and
easier
recognition,
a
wheel
system
in
the
back
can
play
the
role
of
stabilizer.

28. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.28
/
56
Figure
16.
Initial
sketches
for
design
alternative
Nr.3
Alternative
#3
As
robots
get
more
and
more
human-­‐like,
in
alternative
#3
we
can
already
nave
some
more
human
features
like
head
and
two
arms,
for
example.
In
this
case
the
head
is
rather
a
helmet,
and
a
big
mask
instead
of
a
display
or
face.
Two
arms
or
a
tray,
attached
to
the
body
is
the
functional
part
which
the
patient
interacts
with.
Proportions
are
childish
–
bigger
head
and
smaller
body.

29. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.29
/
56
Figure
17.
Initial
sketches
for
design
alternative
Nr.4
Alternative
#4
The
concept
is
developing
smoothly
to
a
humanoid,
adding
legs,
which
may
be
separate,
or
just
imitating.
Here
we
can
already
have
a
neck,
attached
to
a
head
or
a
helmet.
Smaller
mask
and
more
detailed
arms,
as
well
as
shoes/feet
are
preferable.

30. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.30
/
56
Figure
18.
Initial
sketches
for
design
alternative
Nr.4,
part
2
Alternative
#4
The
concept
of
alternatives
from
#4
onwards
will
differ
in
genders,
as
well.
In
this
design
the
concept
changed
its
direction
to
an
animation
character’s
proportion
for
the
humanoids.
This
means
really
exaggerated
big
head
and
significantly
smaller
body
in
different
from
human
proportions.

31. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.31
/
56
Figure
19.
Initial
sketches
for
design
alternative
Nr.5
Alternative
#5
Approaching
the
android
we
risk
falling
into
the
uncanny
valley.
That’s
why
we
want
to
make
this
falling
controlled,
by
switching
to
exaggerated,
but
rather
detailed,
human
features,
but
still
following
the
line
of
human
likeness.
For
example
–
making
the
eyes
and
the
mouth
extremely
big
is
acceptable,
but
placing
the
face
on
the
body
part
is
not
–
it
is
less
human
like
than
the
previous
alternatives.

32. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.32
/
56
Figure
20.
Initial
sketches
for
design
alternative
Nr.6
Alternative
#6
For
the
right
hill
of
the
uncanny
valley
graph
we
have
and
android
which
should
possess
already
human-­‐
like
detailed
features
like
real-­‐size
eyes
and
an
appropriate
nice
sight.
Nose
and
ears,
as
well
as
an
open
mouth
can
finish
the
face.
Their
arms
and
feet
can
be
supplied
with
fingers,
instead
of
just
clippers.
Longer
legs
and
knees
would
increase
the
impression
of
available
realistic
movement.

33. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.33
/
56
Pretest
design
Scenario
The
context
chosen
for
the
study
and
associated
HRI
trials
was
that
of
a
domestic
robot
bringing
a
glass
and
a
bottle
of
water
to
the
participant.
Participants
and
procedure
At
the
beginning
of
each
trial,
information
about
the
purpose
of
the
current
test
was
given
to
each
of
the
participants
and
detailed
instructions
for
participating
in
the
experiment.
A
supervisor
was
on
hand
to
answer
any
further
questions
and
to
repeat
the
instructions
if
necessary.
Twenty
participants
took
part
in
the
pretests.
There
were
mainly
students
(60%),
7
female
and
13
male.
The
average
age
was
26.
Everyone
could
communicate
in
English
with
12
growing
up
in
Germany,
and
8
growing
up
in
other
non-­‐English
speaking
countries
(4
in
India,
3
in
Spain,
1
in
Turkey).
The
majority
(80%)
said
they
had
some
information
about
any
kind
of
robots
–
incl.
rescue
robots,
service
robots,
industrial
building
robots,
but
only
30%
of
them
had
real
live
experience
with
robots.
The
participants
were
all
volunteers
and
none
received
remuneration.
The
pretests
took
place
in
a
university
laboratory.
The
test
subjects
were
sitting
in
front
of
24”
LCD
screen.
Only
one
subject
at
a
time
was
examined.
Each
of
them
completed
the
first
part
of
a
questionnaire
individually,
providing
basic
demographic
details
including
background,
gender,
and
age,
as
well
as
robot
information
or
interaction
experience
before
they
were
exposed
to
the
testing.
The
relevant
questions
from
the
questionnaire
are
provided
below
in
the
Questionnaire
section.
The
participants
were
then
shown
visualizations
of
eleven
robots.
Robots’
appearances
were
labeled
with
numbers
only
for
the
supervisor
in
order
to
avoid
any
possible
influences
on
the
subjects’
judgments.
Each
participant
was
given
a
different
sequence
of
the
robots’
pictures.
In
this
way
there
is
no
possibility
for
them
to
guess
our
predicted
initial
ranking
order
of
the
alternatives
as
they
were
created.
The
participants
had
to
fill
in
the
second
part
of
the
questionnaire
while
watching
the
pictures
in
order
to
mark
their
preferences
towards
each
robot
appearance.
A
sample
of
the
test
sheet
is
shown
in
the
Questionnaire
section,
as
well.
Each
of
the
two
20cm-­‐long
horizontal
lines
represents
a
100%
scale
for
both
factors
–
Human
likeness
and
Familiarity.
For
the
upper
one
(Human
likeness)
the
extremities
are:
0%
for
Machine-­‐like,
and
100%
for
Human
like
appearance
of
the
visualized
robot.
For
the
second
line,
respectively:
0%
for
Very
strange,
and
100%
for
Very
familiar.
Each
participant
had
to
mark
(using
a
vertical
line
or
a
cross)
on
each
line
their
evaluation.
Finally,
the
participants
were
asked
whether
they
had
any
difficulty
completing
the
questionnaire
or
understanding
what
they
were
supposed
to
do
in
the
experiment;
and
what
their
impression
was
of
the
11
robot
designs.
All
evaluations
from
the
second
part
of
the
questionnaire
were
then
measured
in
centimeters
and
the
data
was
transferred
into
a
table
(Table
1.).

34. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.34
/
56
Visualizations
Visualizations
were
designed
and
rendered
in
CAD
software
–
3D
Studio
Max
Design
2012.
At
first,
all
the
robots
should
be
visualized
in
identical
environment
and
doing
the
same
task
–
in
this
case
they
carry
a
tray
with
a
bottle
and
a
glass
of
water.
According
to
some
findings
of
Walters
et
al.
[23],
humans
strongly
did
not
like
a
direct
frontal
approach
by
a
robot,
especially
while
sitting
(even
at
a
table)
or
while
standing
with
their
back
to
a
wall.
An
approach
from
the
front
left
or
front
right
was
preferred.
In
this
case,
all
the
visualizations
are
taken
with
the
robots
“approaching”
from
the
front
right
side
of
the
screen.
Design
alternative
#1
(Figure
21.)
has
been
chosen
to
resemble
a
simplistic
association
with
the
famous
R2D2
robot.
This
is
because
it
is
familiar
enough,
and
still
does
not
possess
any
human
features,
but
rather
is
closer
to
an
object
from
a
living
environment
(e.g.
a
small
table
or
a
mobile
mini-­‐bar).
The
function
concept
behind
is
that
the
hemisphere
on
the
top
can
open
from
the
needed
side
(either
from
user’s
side,
or
working
side
–
where
bottle
charging
happens).
The
robot
moves
by
3
spherical
wheels,
symmetrically
placed
on
its
bottom.
Design
alternative
#2
(Figure
22.)
won
among
the
rest
of
the
sketch
concepts
because
its
lack
of
a
hand
makes
the
curve
of
transition
between
alternatives
smoother.
Still
its
silhouette
and
movement
signs
remind
more
of
an
object
than
a
human.
It
possesses
a
display
for
interaction
with
the
user.
The
wheels
are
also
three,
but
cylindrical
and
asymmetrically
places,
two
of
which
in
the
back.
This
was
imposed
by
the
asymmetrical
shape,
which
makes
the
silhouette
to
have
a
direction
facing
the
user
or
the
working
plot.
In
non-­‐active
state
the
display
can
be
closed.
Design
alternative
#3
(Figure
23.)
is
designed
to
have
rather
baby
proportions
–
very
big
head
and
a
small
body,
short
arms
and
posing
like
squatting
or
crawling.
That’s
why
the
wheels
here
are
already
four
(association
with
a
baby
crawling).
Its
spherical
helmet
play
the
role
of
a
head,
together
with
a
big
mask,
looks
more
like
a
space
suit.
The
tray
in
this
case
is
attached
to
two
short
“arms”
which
could
be
height-­‐adjusted.
Design
alternatives
#4
(Figures
24.25.)
are
already
in
two
versions
–
female
and
male.
Cartoons
–
a
bigger
head
and
tiny
body,
inspire
their
proportions.
The
head
is
still
spherical
in
shape,
keeping
the
style
from
the
previous
alternative
#3.
There
is
a
darker
helmet,
which
can
be
considered
as
hair.
Here
the
mask
is
smaller,
resembling
sunglasses,
slightly
different
depending
on
the
gender.
Mouth
appears
on
the
face
to
make
it
more
character
look-­‐alike.
More
humanoid
features
come
up
–
arms
are
proportional
to
the
body
and
are
separate
from
the
tray.
The
hands
are
like
clippers.
The
female
has
a
“dress”,
while
the
male
is
“dressed”
in
trousers.
Their
moving
equipment
consists
of
small
“shoes”,
and
it
is
supposed
to
slide
on
the
ground,
instead
of
rolling
wheels.
Design
alternatives
#5
(Figures
26.27.)
go
closer
to
the
predicted
uncanny
valley
of
the
graph.
That’s
why
the
concept
of
exaggerating
human
features
is
applied
here.
It
is
expressed
most
noticeable
in
face
features
like
bigger
eyes
and
wider
mouth,
small
and
animal-­‐type
nose.
Gender
signs
are
obvious
on
the
upper
bodies.
Limbs
are
turned
up
side
down
–
wider
in
the
lower
parts.
But
the
extremities
here
are
more
detailed
than
the
previous
alternative
–
they
have
knees
and
elbows,
as
they
are
even
moving
independently
(not
sliding
together).

35. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.35
/
56
Design
alternatives
#6
(Figures
28.29.)
are
going
up
to
the
android
on
the
predicted
graph
in
this
study.
That’s
why
face
features
are
much
closer
to
the
real
human
eyes,
mouth,
nose,
and
even
cheeks,
as
well
as
the
head
shape,
which
is
already
looking
like
human
skull.
Eyebrows
and
ears
are
added.
The
extremities
are
in
proper
human
proportions.
Hands
have
fingers
and
feet
are
more
human-­‐like.
Design
alternatives
#7
(Figures
30.31.)
are
supposed
to
be
the
real
humans.
They
are
re-­‐
defined
three-­‐dimensional
models,
adapted
to
the
style
of
the
previous
alternatives.
The
most
important
here
was
their
sight
–
it
should
be
nice
and
friendly,
not
frightening
the
users.
This
task
is
very
difficult,
because
it
is
still
not
a
real
human,
and
it
is
obvious
for
the
test
subject,
who
is
a
real
human.
Both
female
and
male
models
present
nice
looking
waiters
or
companion
staff.
Their
clothes
are
in
same
colors
like
the
robots,
so
test
subject
would
not
be
confused
of
too
different
factor
levels
(like
different
colors).
Figure
21.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
design
alternative
Nr.1

36. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.36
/
56
Figure
22.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
design
alternative
Nr.2

37. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.37
/
56
Figure
23.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
design
alternative
Nr.3

38. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.38
/
56
Figure
24.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
design
alternative
Nr.4
–
female
version

39. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.39
/
56
Figure
25.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
design
alternative
Nr.4
–
male
version

40. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.40
/
56
Figure
26.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
design
alternative
Nr.5
–
female
version

41. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.41
/
56
Figure
27.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
design
alternative
Nr.5
–
male
version

42. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.42
/
56
Figure
28.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
design
alternative
Nr.6
–
female
version

43. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.43
/
56
Figure
29.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
design
alternative
Nr.6
–male
version

44. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.44
/
56
Figure
30.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
the
real
human
–
female
version

45. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.45
/
56
Figure
31.
3-­‐dimensional
model
for
the
real
human
–male
version

46. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.46
/
56
Questionnaire
no.
of
participant:
date:
time:
First,
we
ask
you
for
some
information
about
yourself.
Thank
you!
1.
How
old
are
you?
______
years
old
2.
What
is
your
gender?
□
Male
□
Female
3.
What
is
your
highest
level
of
education?
□
No
graduation
□
secondary
modern
school
□
PhD
□
Business
school
□
On-­‐the-­‐job
training
□
A-­‐level
□
Studies
□
secondary
school
level
I
certificate
□
Other:
_________
4.
Where
do
you
work
/
you
have
worked?
□
Craft
□
Social-­‐/Humanities
sciences
□
Mercantile
/Administration
□
technical/Natural
science
□
Housewife/-­‐husband
□
Other:
_______________________
5.
Have
you
ever
read,
heard
or
seen
anything
about
robots
(e.g.
in
newspapers,
books,
television,
movies
or
from
friends)?
□
No
□
Yes,
about
following
robots
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
6.
Did
you
have
already
gained
some
experience
by
using
robots?
□
No
□
Yes,
with
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________

47. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.47
/
56

48. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.48
/
56
Pretest
results
and
analyses
Below
all
the
data
collected
from
the
pretests
is
extracted
(Table
1.).
First,
the
average
ratings
for
Human
likeness
and
Familiarity
were
measured
(Figure
32.).
The
standard
deviations
are
also
shown
there.
In
our
case
there
are
some
big
values
for
some
of
the
alternatives
(mostly
for
extremities
–
the
machine
like
and
the
real
humans).
Regarding
the
low
numbers
of
test
subjects
in
the
pretests,
we’d
rather
conclude
that
the
standard
deviation
shows
us
that
people
have
very
different
opinions
about
the
robots’
appearance.
These
deviations
could
be
in
a
different
range
after
the
real
tests
later.
Figure
32.
Human
likeness
and
Familiarity
curves
with
Standard
deviations
measured
on
11-­‐point
scale
An
important
data
about
the
differentiations
in
robots’
genders
could
be
seen
in
the
graph
above.
It
shows
very
close
results
between
the
female
and
male
forms
in
each
of
the
alternatives.
This
means
that
we
don’t
actually
need
these
differentiations
between
the
genders
and
we
could
reduce
the
number
of
alternatives
to
7,
instead
of
11.
This
reduces
the
time
needed
for
running
the
real
tests
as
well.
Then
comes
the
question:
Which
gender
should
we
take
away?
The
answer
comes
from
the
two
graphs
below
–
Figure
33
and
Figure
34.

49. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.49
/
56
Table
1.
Data
results
from
the
pretests

50. RHI:
Investigation
of
the
uncanny
valley
Alessya
Ivanova
p.50
/
56
Figure
33.
The
uncanny
valley
graphs
for
both
genders
of
the
robots
Figure
34.
Human
likeness
curves
for
both
participants’
genders
The
Uncanny
valley
for
robot’s
genders