Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnersincongruent condition (when the ink colour and the word meaning disagree), stronginterference was found. The term interference in the stroop task literature is used todenote the difference in reaction time between congruent and incongruent conditions.In the incongruent condition longer reaction time and more errors occurred (peopletended to read aloud the name of the word rather than to name the colour). A lessreliable, but often observed facilitation effect was also found when the ink colour andword agree.Performance on the Stroop task relies on executive attention to maintain in memorythe primary goal of naming the colour, while suppressing the stronger tendency toread aloud the word (Engle, 2002). The Stroop effect has been explained in terms ofautomaticity of the response and relative speed of processing. Automatic processesare involuntary; they are induced by a stimulus and run their course to completiononce started without conscious intervention. To block an automatic stimulus requireseffort and has side effects on the processing of other stimuli, as demonstrated by theincreased reaction time in the incongruent condition.The Stroop task paradigm has been applied to a variety of stimuli combinations.These stimuli include picture-word combinations, and face-word combinations. In thepicture-word combination, the word is known to be the strongest stimulus. Indeed,incongruent words printed inside pictures strongly interfered with picture naming,whereas incongruent pictures had only a marginal effect on word reading.The combination of faces and words is interestingly as it associates two stimuli whichare automatically processed. Stenberg and his colleagues (Stenberg et al., 1998)applied the Stroop task paradigm to analyse the effect of faces on a word processingtask. They tested compound stimuli, consisting of words superimposed on pictures ofaffective faces. Participants were given the task of evaluating the affective valence ofthe word, while disregarding the information coming from the face. Results of threeexperiments demonstrated an effect of facial expression on word evaluation.Negative words shown within a negative face were facilitated as compared to positivewords; vice versa, positive words were facilitated when shown within a positive faceas compared to negative words. The author concludes that affective facialexpressions are automatically processed and can interfere with other task. We baseour study on this assumption and we aim to verify if this effect is maintained evenwhen the face is not human and the word is not superimposed on the stimulus butrather displayed close to the ECA, as in the traditional speech bubble interaction.3. Evaluation of Colette’s non-verbal communicationThe first phase of our research involved an in depth evaluation of the expressivenessof Colette’s non-verbal communication. This was necessary in order to select a set ofnon-ambiguous stimuli to be tested in the stroop experiment. Colette provides a totalof 47 standard body animations and 13 facial expressions which can be controlled bya viewer application (Figure 1). Selecting one item of these lists or a combination ofthem, results in Colette performing the action. The basic emotions conveyed by theagent are happiness (positive), sadness (negative), anger (negative), and surprise(neutral).Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix A page 6
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersFigure 1. Colette and the animation viewerThe evaluation was performed in two main phases. Phase 1 selected a subset ofemotions to be tested by an on-line survey in phase 2.3.1 Emotion selection3.1.1 MethodPhase 1 consisted in an expert based-evaluation, supported by well establishedknowledge on signal characteristics of facial expressions and their link to emotionappraisal (Ekman and Friesen, 1975 ), and knowledge on affective semantic of bodyposture (Argyle, 1988). Based on this knowledge, the author systematically analysedthe list of animations and expressions of Colette, testing them individually and inevery possible combinations.The expert based evaluation allowed identifying a smaller subset of combinations(N=30) which were tested with 6 people (3 males and 3 females, covering a broadage range, from 25 to 63). The viewer was operated by the experimenter and washidden to the participant by a cardboard screen taped to the computer screen. Toavoid interferences which could be generated by the label of the animation(automatically displayed in a speech bubble), the part of the screen above Colette’shead was hidden by a dark tape. Under these conditions, participants were shown theset of 30 animations and asked to indicate if they represented a positive, a negativeor a neutral emotion. They were also presented all the individual facial expressionsand selected body animations and asked to name them. At the end of the trial,participants were invited to comment and motivate their scoring for all the animationswhich they had incorrectly labelled. This procedure allowed selecting the 12 stimulitested in the on-line study, and evincing a number of limitations of Colette’s nonverbal repertoire.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix A page 7
Page 1 and 2:
ATGENTIVEIST-4-027529-STPDELIVERABL
Page 3 and 4:
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
May 2007AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
CollaborationAtGentive IST-4-027529
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
DescriptionAtGentive IST-4-027529-S
Page 90 and 91:
Integratability:AtGentive IST-4-027
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 172 and 173: The effects of a computer agent’s
Page 180 and 181: 4. ResultsAtGentive IST-4-027529-ST
Page 184 and 185: Additional pedagogical investigatio
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208:
show all

Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?