Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnersexperimental artefacts induced by the type of videos used in the study, and theexperimental task. Despite great care in the preparation of these stimuli, the 6animations were not equivalent. Some of the main problems which may have affectedour results are commented below.1. Animation evolution. An important limitation of the experiment was that allvideos started and ended in a rest position, displaying a slightly smiling face.After the display of negative emotions, the rest position may have createdsome cognitive conflicts, which may have exerted an influence in the wordevaluation task, if the subject had not reacted yet to the word.2. Synchronisation issue. Experiment 1 tested words appearing during the video(interval 2,500 msec), as we believed that this solution would have createdstronger conflicts. Yet, due to a different time evolution of the 6 animations, atthis time interval the emotional message was more or less strong. In bothanimations reflecting positive emotions the word appeared at the apex of thegestural communication. This point happened to consist of a salient harmmovement (waving and OK gesture), which may have been used by the useras a clue that the word was going to be displayed. This explanation canaccount for the quickest processing time of negative words when displayedconcurrently to positive emotion, than to neutral and negative one.3. Control condition. The neutral condition was not completely emotionless,because Colette is strongly biased towards positive emotions, both in theposture and in facial expressions (section 3).In order to investigate the reliability of the findings of experiment 1, an improvedexperimental design was tested in Experiment 2.Experiment 1 also suggested an interesting difference between the performance ofnative and non-native English speakers, suggesting that individual differences maybe an important factor in attention distribution.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix A page 18
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learners5. Experiment 2This Experiment aimed to reproduce Experiment 1 with a number of methodologicalmodifications and improvements. Based on the difference evinced in Experiment 1between native and non-native English speakers, we decided to concentrateexclusively on people who, despite being fluent in English, have learned it as asecond language. This sample is important as it reflects a large proportion ofeducated European students and professionals, who are daily confronted withInternet resources in English.The same hypotheses stated in Section 4 were tested (persona effect and positivevalence advantage). An additional test was introduced, to address memory retention(Stenberg et al., 1998). At the end of the RT task, participants were invited torecognise the list of words presented in the experiment, from a set of distracters.Assuming that words encountered in inconsistent conditions were more deeplyprocessed, to counteract the effect of the disturbing stimulus, we expected that theyshould have been more easily recognised (Inconsistency advantage).5.1 Method5.1.1 ParticipantsTwenty-two people participated in the experiment. They were postgraduate studentsat the University of Manchester. All of them were proficient in English, but not nativespeakers.5.1.2 MaterialsNew videos were recorded to show a progression of emotion. They all started withthe facial expression showing the lowest level of a specific emotion (e.g., angry 1),and then progressed to a more marked facial expressions (e.g., angry 2), immediatelyfollowed by the corresponding body animation (e.g., angry) 2. All videos lasted 3seconds. The final clip, which remained visible on the computer screen until the userpressed a key, showed the agent in the apex of the emotion. The words weredisplayed 100 msec before the video was completed. Only four videos (two positiveand two negative emotions) were recorded as in Experiment 2, no video wasdisplayed in the control condition.The word lists were also substantially revised. Six lists were created, completelybalanced on average word valence, length and frequency of use. These lists werepaired two by two, according to the procedure proposed by (Larsen et al., 2006).These authors developed two lists of positive and negative words. In each list,individual main words (either positive or negative) were matched to their opposite,balanced by length, orthographic variation, and frequency of use. Main words andtheir opposite were counterbalanced in our study, so that each list contained thesame number of direct stimuli (main words) and opposite ones. Once again, lengthand frequency of use was kept constant. The six lists were then assigned toanimation conditions, with the criteria that matched list could not be proposed in thesame animation condition, and that each video could not include the same list twice.A new list of 72 words was prepared to be tested in the memory items. It included 36words tested in the first part of the experiment and 36 distracter items. Distracterswere selected by the lists developed by (Larsen et al., 2006), with the constraint thatDel <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix A page 19
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:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115: 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 208: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
show all

Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

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

Delete template?

Save as template?