Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleResearch Article: New Research, Cognition and Behavior

A Naturalistic Dynamic Monkey Head Avatar Elicits Species-Typical Reactions and Overcomes the Uncanny Valley

Ramona Siebert, Nick Taubert, Silvia Spadacenta, Peter W. Dicke, Martin A. Giese and Peter Thier
eNeuro 8 June 2020, 7 (4) ENEURO.0524-19.2020; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0524-19.2020
Ramona Siebert
1Department of Cognitive Neurology, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany
3Graduate School of Neural and Behavioural Sciences, International Max Planck Research School for Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72074, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ramona Siebert
Nick Taubert
1Department of Cognitive Neurology, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany
2Section for Computational Sensomotorics, Department of Cognitive Neurology, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research and Werner Reichardt Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Silvia Spadacenta
1Department of Cognitive Neurology, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter W. Dicke
1Department of Cognitive Neurology, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin A. Giese
1Department of Cognitive Neurology, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany
2Section for Computational Sensomotorics, Department of Cognitive Neurology, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research and Werner Reichardt Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Thier
1Department of Cognitive Neurology, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Movies
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    A, Schematic of the avatar generation process. B, Overview of stimulus categories. Render types, columns left to right, Wireframe, grayscale, furless, naturalistic avatar, real monkey. Expressions, rows top to bottom, Neutral, fear grin, lip smacking, threat, artificial blowing. Images depict extreme frames of the expressions, which were also used for the static videos. C, Example outlines of ROIs, within which fixations were analyzed, with overlaid example scanpaths on a wireframe avatar, neutral face (top left), grayscale avatar, blowing face (bottom left), furless avatar, lip-smacking face (top right), naturalistic avatar, fear grinning face (middle right), and real, threatening face (bottom right). Blue, Entire face ROI. Orange, Eyes ROI. Yellow, Nose ROI. Purple, Mouth ROI. White, Scanpath. Black star, First fixation. Black diamonds, Subsequent fixations. ROIs were manually drawn using the MATLAB impoly function and the coordinates of the ROI polygon were subsequently extracted using the getPosition function. D, Heatmap of all fixations of all monkeys during the experiment. Heatmaps were created by plotting all fixations and convolving the image first in x, then in y direction with a Gaussian function of standard deviation 10 pixels, taking the duration of each fixation interval as the amplitude.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Number of fixations on different render types (N = 8). A, Boxplots show fixation numbers per render type (render type effect size: χ2(4) = 72.60, p < 0.001). B, Fixation numbers for all monkeys individually. Markers indicate within-subject mean ± SEM. C, Median fixation numbers separated by expression; effect was significant within each expression category except for blowing (marginally significant). Neutral: χ2(4) = 19.09, p < 0.001; fear: χ2(4) = 17.80, p = 0.0013; lip smack: χ2(4) = 19.39, p < 0.001; threat: χ2(4) = 19.90, p < 0.001; blowing: χ2(3) = 7.37, p = 0.061. D, Boxplots show fixation numbers on dynamic and static videos within each render type category. Significant differences between dynamic and static videos were found for grayscale avatars only. Wireframe: χ2(1) = 0.026, p = 0.87; grayscale: χ2(1) = 5.77, p = 0.016; furless: χ2(1) = 0.026, p = 0.87; avatar: χ2(1) = 0.40, p = 0.53; real: χ2(1) = 1.13, p = 0.29; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Number of fixations on different expressions (N = 8). A, Boxplots show fixation numbers per dynamic expressions (left), expression effect size: χ2(3) = 19.27, p < 0.001; and static expressions (right), expression effect size: χ2(3) = 25.82, p < 0.001. B, Fixation numbers for all monkeys individually, dynamic expressions (left) and static expressions (right). Markers indicate within-subject mean ± SEM. C, Median fixation numbers separated by render type. Left, Dynamic expressions: wireframe: χ2(4) = 9.02, p = 0.061; gray: χ2(4) = 8.51, p = 0.075; no fur: χ2(4) = 7.16, p = 0.13; avatar: χ2(4) = 13.01, p = 0.56; real: χ2(3) = 2.54, p = 0.47. Right, Static expressions, effect was significant within the no fur category and marginally significant within the gray category: wireframe: χ2(4) = 6.80, p = 0.15; gray: χ2(4) = 9.48, p = 0.050; no fur: χ2(4) = 11.56, p = 0.021; avatar: χ2(4) = 4.38, p = 0.36; real: χ2(3) = 2.88, p = 0.41; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Monkeys’ average fixation numbers on each side during the preferential looking paradigm (experiment 2), revealing strong side biases of all monkeys except monkey P.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    HRV, measured as RMSSD (N = 5). A, All dynamic expressions compared, RMSSD tended to be lower in the threatening condition, indicating elevated arousal. B, Dynamic threatening versus static threatening expressions. C, Grayscale dynamic expressions only; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Average probability to show lip smacking, fear grinning, agitation (teeth grinding/tension yawning), or no reaction when viewing each render type. Monkeys (N = 3) were most likely to lip smack when seeing the real monkey and the naturalistic avatar (wireframe < real, p < 0.001; furless < real, p = 0.0018; wireframe < avatar, p = 0.052). The probability for no reaction was highest for the unrealistic wireframe head (wireframe > gray, p = 0.024; wireframe > furless, p = 0.011; wireframe > avatar, p < 0.001; wireframe > real, p < 0.001; gray > real, p = 0.017; furless > real, p = 0.035). The highest probability to fear grin occurred toward the furless avatar (wireframe < furless, p < 0.001, wireframe < avatar, p = 0.041; real < furless p = 0.041). Differences in agitated reactions were not significant.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Movies
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Render type effect on all looking parameters investigated: cumulative fixation duration (FixDur), fixation number (FixNum), mean fixation duration (MeanFix), and total looking time (LookT) on the entire face, the eyes and the mouth, as well as exploration distance (ExplorDistance) and the feature index

    LookingparameterWireframeGrayscaleFurlessAvatarRealχ2 (df = 4),n = 64, p value
    median (IQR)Diffmedian (IQR)Diffmedian (IQR)Diffmedian (IQR)Diffmedian (IQR)Diff
    FixDur face1372.38
    (1004.95–1528.14)
    –1264.38
    (909.91–1491.12)
    R1307.35
    (972.22–1500.50)
    –1287.79
    (1067.57–1497.17)
    –1291.11
    (1107.00–1503.56)
    G14.34, 0.0063
    FixNum face5.25 (4.10–5.88)G,F4.50 (3.47–5.15)W,A,R4.65 (3.87–5.30)W,A,R5.05 (4.29–5.54)G,F,R5.24 (4.59–5.81)G,F,A72.60, 0.000
    MeanFix face257.90
    (202.76–297.55)
    G,F281.20
    (219.47–335.81)
    W,R279.79
    (215.82–318.47)
    W266.05
    (223.89–317.37)
    –255.79
    (209.76–304.01)
    G14.31, 0.000
    LookT face1747.15
    (1481.48–1904.80)
    –1645.17
    (1332.39–1805.54)
    R1632.71
    (1325.82–1818.56)
    R1659.63
    (1464.91–1869.56)
    –1722.50
    (1490.59–1859.79)
    G,F20.16, 0.000
    FixDur eyes131.69
    (43.25–333.02)
    –154.24
    (40.20–340.94)
    R208.69
    (79.64–424.49)
    R148.73
    (54.76–258.94)
    –120.68
    (57.80–196.25)
    G,F22.76, 0.000
    FixNum eyes0.69 (0.23–1.45)–0.79 (0.14–1.60)–0.88 (0.41–1.63)R0.73 (0.19 –1.16)–0.59 (0.30–0.95)F13.96, 0.0074
    MeanFix eyes87.69
    (34.21–160.47)
    F99.03
    (27.18–185.81)
    –111.18
    (41.15–200.42)
    W,R86.06
    (46.71–137.05)
    –88.52
    (41.03–113.22)
    F17.82, 0.0013
    LookT eyes206.27
    (68.00–450.86)
    –233.94
    (70.78–433.51)
    R264.91
    (113.93–543.33)
    R225.89
    (88.39–331.98)
    –150.89
    (85.44–235.24)
    G,F22.95, 0.000
    FixDur mouth114.21
    (44.21–348.00)
    R85.50
    (22.00–238.72)
    R83.55
    (36.43–255.68)
    R134.61
    (37.64–322.05)
    R295.09
    (154.16–502.11)
    W,G,F,A31.41, 0.000
    FixNum mouth0.47 (0.20–1.10)R0.30 (0.13–0.76)R0.35 (0.15–0.88)R0.60 (0.18–1.00)R1.05 (0.65–1.75)W,G,F,A49.13, 0.000
    MeanFix mouth88.65
    (38.25–170.35)
    R66.22
    (21.51–134.25)
    R72.56
    (21.61–167.42)
    R85.35
    (34.71–180.25)
    R184.02
    (121.85–234.05)
    W,G,F,A32.15, 0.000
    LookT mouth185.02
    (89.82–508.29)
    R140.38
    (48.50–486.70)
    R190.06
    (70.80–458.94)
    R216.90
    (76.28–545.16)
    R663.86
    (357.08–890.90)
    W,G,F,A79.75, 0.000
    ExplorDistance10.38 (6.17–13.22)F10.57 (5.25–12.73)A,R10.91 (6.98–12.67)W,A,R12.57 (7.26–14.25)G,F11.82 (7.52–14.12)G,F50.91, 0.000
    Feature index–0.13 (–0.45–0.064)––0.23 (–0.48–0.19)––0.27 (–0.42–0.15)––0.29 (–0.47–0.070)––0.32 (–0.49– 0.00)–7.16, 0.13
    • Table shows group medians and interquartile range (IQR) of all eight subjects per condition, results of Friedman’s ANOVA (last column) with test statistic value (χ2), degrees of freedom (df), number of values per condition included in the statistical analysis (n), and significance level (p value) and shows from which groups the respective group differed significantly (Diff, p < 0.05) according to Dunn and Sidák’s post hoc multiple comparisons approach (W = wireframe, G = grayscale, F = furless, A = avatar, R = real). To be able to apply Friedman’s ANOVA, trials with a blowing avatar were excluded from the analysis to assure the same number of expressions per render type category (no blowing expression in the real video). Effects were regarded as statistically significant at p < 0.05; p values <0.001 were rounded to 0.000.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Expression effect for all data and for dynamic and static conditions separately on all looking parameters investigated: Cumulative fixation duration (FixDur), fixation number (FixNum), mean fixation duration (MeanFix), total looking time (LookT) on the entire face, the eyes and the mouth, as well as exploration distance (ExplorDistance) and the feature index

    LookingparameterNeutralFearLip smackThreatBlowingχ2 (df = 3), n = 80 (all)/n = 40 (dyn./ stat.), p value
    median (IQR)Diffmedian (IQR)Diffmedian (IQR)Diffmedian (IQR)Diffmedian (IQR)Diff
    FixDur face1248.40
    (945.96–1504.73)
    T1285.90
    (1007.32–1509.05)
    -1274.78
    (1036.78–1472.54)
    -1359.36
    (1116.01–1521.50)
    N1295.06
    (906.30–1512.56)
    -13.19, 0.0043
    Dynamic1252.29
    (1024.79–1499.55)
    T1261.65
    (1023.37–1481.34)
    T1334.24
    (1089.78–1495.33)
    -1413.88
    (1187.31–1557.18)
    N,F1368.56
    (866.48–1495.15)
    -11.61, 0.0088
    Static1231.20
    (895.70–1512.90)
    -1359.37
    (1007.33–1515.76)
    -1219.72
    (964.70–1470.73)
    -1300.02
    (1045.58–1474.63)
    -1248.46
    (946.79–1531.31)
    -9.81, 0.020
    FixNum face4.60 (3.74–5.34)F,T4.78 (4.17–5.59)N,T4.75 (4.00–5.50)T5.16 (4.39–5.75)N,F,L,B4.75 (3.79–5.33)T36.13, 0.000
    Dynamic4.70 (3.54–5.29)T4.67 (4.10–5.35)T5.00 (4.06–5.64)-5.11 (4.20–5.65)N,F4.79 (3.61–5.32)-19.27, 0.000
    Static4.59 (3.95–5.40)F,T5.17 (4.21–5.66)N,L4.68 (3.93–5.29)F,T5.29 (4.58–5.88)N,L4.75 (3.79–5.38)-25.82, 0.000
    MeanFix face272.72
    (215.33–327.00)
    -268.26
    (221.70–314.29)
    -271.51
    (214.84–326.07)
    -262.75
    (214.94–314.11)
    -272.27
    (228.53–329.26)
    -1.67, 0.64
    Dynamic276.33
    (222.06–359.12)
    -270.66
    (224.89–318.06)
    -262.50
    (217.53–316.61)
    -277.96
    (228.70–337.22)
    -275.36
    (230.03–337.23)
    -3.57, 0.31
    Static264.10
    (201.13–321.86)
    -266.48
    (203.82–301.40)
    -273.47
    (208.47–342.47)
    -250.87
    (205.81–290.07
    -263.72
    (218.54–312.33)
    -8.04, 0.045
    LookT face1583.35
    (1324.88–1822.86)
    F,T1676.00
    (1482.22–1859.79)
    N,B1651.82
    (1414.69–1816.48)
    T1741.56
    (1515.20–1897.24)
    N,L,B1659.39
    (1315.08–1804.15)
    F,T21.98, 0.000
    Dynamic1583.35
    (1356.10–1824.22)
    T1655.18
    (1487.83–1847.60)
    T1709.45
    (1490.44–1860.99)
    -1769.91
    (1559.55–1913.73)
    N,F,B1691.35
    (1310.83–1796.10)
    T17.55, 0.000
    Static1579.56
    (1224.25–1814.67)
    F1723.87
    (1473.90–1882.95)
    N,L,B1605.48
    (1343.86–1791.33)
    F1720.75
    (1484.35–1849.24)
    -1614.57
    (1355.80–1841.81)
    F12.99, 0.0047
    FixDur eyes132.45
    (47.45–309.08)
    -137.44
    (52.25–295.85)
    -148.83
    (58.52–277.27)
    -157.44
    (49.95–295.45)
    -161.70
    (36.61–337.46)
    -0.61, 0.89
    Dynamic132.45
    (40.79–269.58)
    -171.50
    (52.25–267.40)
    -141.52
    (58.52–254.95)
    -163.75
    (64.73–280.55)
    -86.83
    (20.15–282.23)
    -4.92, 0.18
    Static146.00
    (53.75–316.96)
    -108.55
    (49.13–315.10)
    -174.06
    (58.98–355.03)
    -152.92
    (43.42–297.25)
    -186.05
    (85.84–346.96)
    -4.24, 0.24
    FixNum eyes0.68 (0.21–1.25)-0.61 (0.20–1.27)-0.75 (0.32–1.38)-0.75 (0.27–1.41)-0.65 (0.15–1.40)-0.16, 0.98
    Dynamic0.60 (0.14–1.13)-0.72 (0.31–1.24)-0.65 (0.33–1.14)-0.71 (0.34–1.40)-0.44 (0.11–1.25)-3.21, 0.36
    Static0.80 (0.30–1.38)-0.56 (0.17–1.31)-0.76 (0.30–1.50)-0.84 (0.24–1.46)-0.79 (0.24–1.56)-4.48, 0.21
    MeanFix eyes84.13
    (37.22–155.71)
    -91.27
    (42.00–158.89)
    -92.07
    (36.78–166.40)
    -104.53
    (37.88–153.84)
    -97.34
    (33.61–173.51)
    -0.090, 0.99
    Dynamic78.45
    (37.22–149.58)
    -93.22
    (44.70–152.67)
    -89.26
    (31.24–161.60)
    -108.00
    (34.13–170.79)
    -54.27
    (20.15–158.55)
    -5.93, 0.12
    Static97.98
    (37.33–159.86)
    -74.61
    (38.64–158.89)
    -99.60
    (49.19–182.44)
    -85.94
    (42.83–136.75)
    -100.56
    (46.76–176.23)
    -6.73, 0.081
    LookT eyes207.33
    (78.79–394.69)
    -190.17
    (79.54–391.33)
    -207.94
    (85.69–406.61)
    -228.67
    (73.89–359.25)
    -200.88
    (81.15–446.29)
    -1.18, 0.76
    Dynamic198.74
    (72.49–351.97)
    -204.37
    (79.54–371.99)
    -190.75
    (75.01–342.14)
    -236.72
    (86.73–359.25)
    -162.28
    (42.97–412.26)
    -2.31, 0.51
    Static229.50
    (93.14–441.49)
    -174.60
    (85.16–423.28)
    -221.06
    (115.55–483.18)
    -218.98
    (73.89–359.33)
    -236.95
    (108.33–456.71)
    -7.39, 0.060
    FixDur mouth42.77
    (0.00–105.28)
    F,L,T332.88
    (164.00–492.01)
    N,L,B97.60
    (32.34–267.93)
    N,F,T194.50
    (86.36–435.15)
    N,L,B40.36
    (0.00–123.09)
    F,T138.48, 0.000
    Dynamic53.08
    (0.00–101.61)
    F,L,T318.10
    (175.22–425.38)
    N,L,B169.83
    (37.80–308.61)
    N,F,T215.08
    (63.03–431.31)
    N,L,B46.55
    (0.00–164.79)
    F,T60.61, 0.000
    Static35.21
    (0.00–105.60)
    F,T364.00
    (162.89–516.43)
    N,L,B68.04
    (19.36–147.10)
    F,T191.39
    (105.68–444.44)
    N,L,B32.61
    (0.00–75.89)
    F,T82.44, 0.000
    FixNum mouth0.18 (0.00–0.35)F,L,T1.10 (0.71–1.45)N,L,B0.33 (0.13–0.80)N,F,T0.76 (0.38–1.61)N,L,B0.13 (0.00–0.44)F,T154.06, 0.000
    Dynamic0.18 (0.00–0.30)F,L,T1.15 (0.68–1.40)N,L,B0.52 (0.19–0.86)N,F,T0.73 (0.33–1.50)N,L,B0.13 (0.00–0.53)F,T68.47, 0.000
    Static0.17 (0.00–0.42)F,T1.05 (0.75–1.69)N,L,B0.25 (0.13–0.69)F,T0.83 (0.50–1.69)N,L,B0.13 (0.00–0.28)F T91.15, 0.000
    MeanFix mouth32.29
    (0.00–76.13)
    F,L,T185.52
    (99.68–250.33)
    N,L,B81.24
    (22.28–147.90)
    N,F,T124.94
    (68.72–212.58)
    N,L,B37.44
    (0.00–91.23)
    F,T110.95, 0.000
    Dynamic31.64
    (0.00–83.43)
    F,L,T185.96
    (115.80–260.35)
    N,L,B108.88
    (37.80–193.73)
    N,F141.08
    (54.68–231.49)
    N,B46.55
    (0.00–109.25)
    F,T52.05, 0.000
    Static32.71
    (0.00–76.13)
    F,T183.11
    (82.40–242.64)
    N,L,B44.37
    (19.36–106.97)
    F,T105.57
    (78.54–198.50)
    N,L,B29.39
    (0.00–66.74)
    F,T61.35, 0.000
    LookT mouth95.07
    (31.49–217.05)
    F,L,T669.77
    (389.74–839.84)
    N,L,T,B167.30
    (59.77–465.01)
    N,F,T296.59
    (144.95–679.65)
    N,F,L,B75.64
    (24.02–211.48)
    F,T171.80, 0.000
    Dynamic98.30
    (34.73–268.66)
    F,L,T646.07
    (408.83–790.35)
    N,L,T,B203.35
    (88.94–546.95)
    N,F310.63
    (130.80–723.90)
    N,F,B103.41
    (33.61–228.45)
    F,T81.12, 0.000
    Static93.84
    (26.37–213.30)
    F,T685.58
    (375.59–910.24)
    N,L,B131.00
    (50.00–308.78)
    N,F,T296.59
    (162.84–672.35)
    N,F,L,B59.84
    (20.94–160.83)
    F,T94.59, 0.000
    ExplorDistance10.34
    (5.76–12.35)
    T11.29
    (7.24–13.24)
    T10.57
    (6.39–12.96)
    T12.79
    (7.97–15.43)
    N,F,L,B10.51
    (5.83–12.96)
    T46.40, 0.000
    Dynamic9.65 (5.76–11.95)T11.11 (7.24–13.53)T11.36 (6.32–13.45)T12.35 (6.97–15.56)N,F,L,B10.40 (4.94–12.88)T18.45, 0.000
    Static11.06 (5.82–12.41)T11.29 (7.31–13.08)T10.33 (6.39–12.05)T13.09 (8.76–15.09)N,F,L,B10.51 (7.48–13.28)T29.19, 0.000
    Feature index–0.40 (–0.66–0.049)F,L,T–0.14 (–0.40–0.12)N,L,B–0.32 (–0.50–0.061)N,F,T–0.12 (–0.40–0.20)N,L,B–0.39 (–0.57– 0.0058)F,T56.15, 0.000
    Dynamic–0.39 (–0.62–0.020)F,T–0.16 (–0.38–0.086)N,B–0.33 (–0.49–0.087)-–0.12 (–0.43–0.20)N,B–0.45 (–0.63– –0.055)F,T23.85, 0.000
    Static–0.40 (–0.72–0.077)F,T–0.10 (–0.42–0.20)N,L,B–0.30 (–0.54–0.054)F,T–0.10 (–0.36–0.20)N,L,B–0.35 (–0.54–0.0034)F,T33.69, 0.000
    • Table shows group medians and interquartile range (IQR) of all eight subjects per condition, results of Friedman’s ANOVA (last column) with test statistic value (χ2), degrees of freedom (df), number of values per condition included in the statistical analysis (n), and significance level (p value) and shows from which groups the respective group differed significantly (Diff, p < 0.05) according to Dunn and Sidák’s post hoc multiple comparisons procedure (N = neutral, F = fear, L = lip smack, T = threat, B = blowing). Friedman’s ANOVAs did not include the blowing expressions to assure the same number of render types per expression category (no real blowing video). A second Friedman’s ANOVA was conducted leaving out the real videos (data not shown) and pairwise differences with the blowing expression are reported from this analysis. Effects were regarded as statistically significant at p < 0.05; p values <0.001 were rounded to 0.000.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Video type effect on all looking parameters investigated: cumulative fixation duration (FixDur), fixation number (FixNum), mean fixation duration (MeanFix), total looking time (LookT) on the entire face, the eyes and the mouth, as well as exploration distance (ExplorDistance) and the feature index

    LookingparameterDynamicStaticχ2 (df = 1), n = 192,
    p value
    median (IQR)median (IQR)
    FixDur face1318.51 (1048.08–1512.81)1269.04 (978.38–1497.71)3.00, 0.083
    FixNum face4.87 (4.00–5.50)4.82 (4.05–5.57)0.89, 0.34
    MeanFix face273.05 (225.98–327.38)263.35 (207.90–305.57)21.33, 0.000
    LookT face1687.10 (1464.07–1862.00)1655.48 (1400.45–1845.85)2.08, 0.15
    FixDur eyes145.74 (42.89–265.92)156.75 (57.86–326.73)7.40, 0.0065
    FixNum eyes0.63 (0.21–1.25)0.75 (0.22–1.47)4.26, 0.039
    MeanFix eyes90.99 (32.88–157.91)97.40 (43.25–163.75)1.22, 0.27
    LookT eyes199.50 (72.57–363.35)225.29 (94.66–443.80)8.33, 0.0039
    FixDur mouth148.45 (37.80–322.05)105.68 (32.49–306.04)0.05, 0.82
    FixNum mouth0.43 (0.14–1.09)0.41 (0.13–1.00)0.60, 0.44
    MeanFix mouth99.79 (28.72–193.26)75.88 (25.31–178.24)6.08, 0.014
    LookT mouth216.93 (79.43–573.30)204.05 (63.28–557.71)2.08, 0.15
    ExplorDistance10.73 (6.23–13.56)11.03 (7.07–13.49)0.083, 0.77
    Feature index–0.26 (–0.50–0.063)–0.23 (–0.49–0.097)0.76, 0.38
    • Table shows group medians and interquartile range (IQR) of all eight subjects per condition and results of Friedman’s ANOVA (last column) with test statistic value (χ2), degrees of freedom (df), number of values per condition included in the statistical analysis (n), and significance level (p value). Groups were regarded as statistically significant at p < 0.05; p values <0.001 were rounded to 0.000.

Movies

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Movie 1.

    Monkey E reacting to grayscale, furless, real, and naturalistic render types; eye path overlaid on stimulus video (blue).

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 7 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 7, Issue 4
July/August 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Naturalistic Dynamic Monkey Head Avatar Elicits Species-Typical Reactions and Overcomes the Uncanny Valley
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
A Naturalistic Dynamic Monkey Head Avatar Elicits Species-Typical Reactions and Overcomes the Uncanny Valley
Ramona Siebert, Nick Taubert, Silvia Spadacenta, Peter W. Dicke, Martin A. Giese, Peter Thier
eNeuro 8 June 2020, 7 (4) ENEURO.0524-19.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0524-19.2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
A Naturalistic Dynamic Monkey Head Avatar Elicits Species-Typical Reactions and Overcomes the Uncanny Valley
Ramona Siebert, Nick Taubert, Silvia Spadacenta, Peter W. Dicke, Martin A. Giese, Peter Thier
eNeuro 8 June 2020, 7 (4) ENEURO.0524-19.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0524-19.2020
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • dynamic expressions
  • naturalistic avatar
  • social cognition
  • uncanny valley

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Article: New Research

  • Fast spiking interneurons autonomously generate fast gamma oscillations in the medial entorhinal cortex with excitation strength tuning ING–PING transitions
  • The serotonin 1B receptor modulates striatal activity differentially based on behavioral context
  • Population-level age effects on the white matter structure subserving cognitive flexibility in the human brain
Show more Research Article: New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • The serotonin 1B receptor modulates striatal activity differentially based on behavioral context
  • Population-level age effects on the white matter structure subserving cognitive flexibility in the human brain
  • Neck Vascular Biomechanical Dysfunction Precedes Brain Biochemical Alterations in a Murine Model of Alzheimer’s Disease
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.