Uncanny Valley Effect on Upper Limb Prosthetic Devices on the Ecuadorian Context: Study Proposal

  • Luis Serpa-AndradeEmail author
  • Daniel Proaño-Guevara
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1205)


The main objectives of rehabilitative treatment in the amputee patient are the psychophysical recovery of the patient through protetization and, finally, their socio-labor reintegration. To be able to measure the achievements obtained with the rehabilitative treatment we need to have objective assessment measures (functional assessment scales) that will allow the use of standard terminology. The objective of this study is to review various scales of assessment of the amputee. The scales have been classified as universal (Barthel Index, Pulses Profile, Functional Independence Measure, and Edinburg scale) and specific: for members (Enneking scale and Locomotion Score in Rheumatoid Arthritis) and for amputees (Day scale and the questionnaire Prosthetic Profile of the Amputee). This study seeks to discover the design parameters and the acceptance of the population that uses prosthetic devices and their environment (family, work and health personnel) towards new technologies in terms of prostheses to discover and understand the functioning of the Uncanny Valley in the Ecuadorian environment, to avoid falling into it. The results will be adequately delimited and tabulated by intelligent computer systems.


Uncanny valley Anthropomorphism Humanlikeness Upper limb Prosthesis Ecuador Sensation Perception Social acceptation 


  1. 1.
    Jarrín Aguirre, D.V.: Diseño del lanzamiento para la marca; Toucher: innovación en prótesis. Universidad San Francisco de Quito (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckingham, G., Parr, J., Wood, G., Day, S., Chadwell, A., Head, J., Galpin, A., Kenney, L., Kyberd, P., Gowen, E., Poliakoff, E.: Upper- and lower-limb amputees show reduced levels of eeriness for images of prosthetic hands. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 26(4), 1295–1302 (2019). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sansoni, S., Wodehouse, A., McFadyen, A., Buis, A.: The aesthetic appeal of prosthetic limbs and the uncanny valley: the role of personal characteristics in attraction. Int. J. Des. 9, 67–81 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrade, A.O., Pereira, A.A., Walter, S., et al.: Bridging the gap between robotic technology and health care. Biomed. Sig. Process. Control 10, 65–78 (2014). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poliakoff, E., Beach, N., Best, R., et al.: Can looking at a hand make your skin crawl? Peering into the uncanny valley for hands. Perception 42, 998–1000 (2013). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohammad, Y., Nishida, T.: Human-like motion of a humanoid in a shadowing task. In: 2014 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems CTS 2014, pp. 123–130 (2014).
  7. 7.
    Mori, M., MacDorman, K.F., Kageki, N.: The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19, 98–100 (2012). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lay, S., Brace, N., Pike, G., Pollick, F.: Circling around the uncanny valley: design principles for research into the relation between human likeness and eeriness. i-Perception 7 (2016).
  9. 9.
    Gee, F.C., Browne, W.N., Kawamura, K.: Uncanny valley revisited. In: 2005 IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2005, pp. 151–157 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strait, M.K., Aguillon, C., Contreras, V., Garcia, N.: The public’s perception of humanlike robots: Online social commentary reflects an appearance-based uncanny valley, a general fear of a Technology Takeover, and the unabashed sexualization of female-gendered robots. In: RO-MAN 2017 - 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2017-January, pp. 1418–1423 (2017).
  11. 11.
    Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 71–81 (2009). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merleau-Ponty M.: Fenomenología de la percepción (1945)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oviedo, G.L.: Antecedentes y contexto histórico del concepto percepción. Rev. Estud. Soc. 18, 89–96 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    García Obrero, I., Echeverría Ruiz de Vargas, C., Sánchez Navarro, C., et al.: Escalas de valoración en el paciente amputado. Rehabilitación 32, 113–125 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Waytz, A., Heafner, J., Epley, N.: The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 52, 113–117 (2014). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beiboer, J., Sandoval, E.B.: Validating the accuracy of imaged-based research into the uncanny valley: an experimental proposal. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2019-March, pp. 608–609 (2019).
  17. 17.
    Brink, K.A., Gray, K., Wellman, H.M.: Creepiness creeps in: uncanny valley feelings are acquired in childhood. Child Dev. 90, 1202–1214 (2019).
  18. 18.
    Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C., Maderwald, S., et al.: Neural mechanisms for accepting and rejecting artificial social partners in the uncanny valley. J. Neurosci. 39, 6555–6570 (2019). Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group on Artificial Intelligence and Assistive Technologies GIIATa, UNESCO Member for InclusionCuencaEcuador
  2. 2.Research Group on Biomedical EngineeringUniversidad Politécnica SalesianaCuencaEcuador

Personalised recommendations