Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learners5.3 DiscussionOverall, experiment 2 showed a set of results highly consistent with those ofexperiment 2. These results provided mixed support to the persona effect. Theanalysis of the errors showed a strong conflict between consistent and inconsistentconditions, confirming that non-verbal cues from the agent were processed andinterfered with word naming. On the average, inconsistent conditions induces some4% of errors more than consistent conditions.The analysis of the reaction times showed a more complex framework. The onlyreliable effect was the positive valence advantage showing that negative words weresystematically processed slower than positive words. This effect is even stronger thanin Experiment 1, probably because of the different timing between words andanimations.The memory task showed no differences in recognition between words presented inconsistent and inconsistent conditions, or words presented alone. This suggests thatnon-verbal messages coming from the agent have little effect on learning.6. ConclusionIn a general sense, support was provided for the persona-effect hypothesis, claimingthat users pay attention to non-verbal communication provided by embodiedconversational agents. A strong interference between words and gestures wasevinced in both experiments in word-recognition accuracy. Positive words which weredisplayed with negative emotions tended to induce more errors that when they weredisplayed with positive emotions; and vice versa negative words displayed withpositive emotions tended to induce more errors than negative words displayed withnegative emotions.The two experiments are also consistent in showing that there is a speed advantagefor the reaction to positive valenced words over negative valenced words. Thesefindings are consistent with psychological literature on the positive valence advantage(Stenberg et al., 1998). Yet, in contrast to previous studies we did not find anymodification to this effect induced by the fact that words were presented in consistentor inconsistent conditions. Several procedural differences can explain this difference.Stenberg and his colleagues tested pictures of real human beings, rather thananimations of embodied conversational agents; the display duration for the stimuliwas significantly longer in our experiments, and the two stimuli were notsuperimposed as in the original study. The longer inspection time available toparticipants in our experiments may have allowed more controlled processing todevelop, and hence decreased the effect of consistency/inconsistency in reactiontimes. This assumption would need independent verification. The difference in stimuli(face with a word superimposed in the study by Stenberg et al., 1998 vs. animationwith a word on a corner in our study) is also a well-known predictor of the occurrenceof interference effects (MacLeod, 1991).The lack of consistency between RT and error data in both experiments can beexplained by the notion of automatic processing. As discussed in section 2.2, bothwords and faces are automatically processed, meaning that they run their course tocompletion without controlled processing. What seems to happen in our study is aconflict between orientation of attention and executive attention. In inconsistentDel <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix A page 22
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnersconditions, gestural animations can sometimes capture the user attention and runtheir course to completion independently of the task at hand (word recognition). Whenthe attention was oriented towards the agent, evaluation errors occurred. On theother hand, when the participant succeeded in keeping their attention focussed on thewords (correct answers), then the animation did not seem to have been particularlydisruptive in processing time. This explanation would need independent verification,but was confirmed by many comments spontaneously provided by participants, suchas ‘You know… I have tried not to look at her, but then I could’nt’ (participants 6,experiment 1).Our results, suggesting that non-verbal cues provided by embodied conversationalagents can affect verbal processing, are important to the design and evaluation ofembodied conversational agents. Indeed, they warn designers of the fundamentalimportance of consistent communication codes between what the agent does andwhat the agent says, not to hamper the user performance. This deliverable provide amethodological framework and a research direction to test consistency incommunication, which can be used by designer to evaluate that their ‘intendedmeaning’ is actually the meaning perceived by the user. The large scale evaluation ofColette, reported in this deliverable, has demonstrated the difficulty of designing forembodied communication and the need for a user-centred design approach in thedesign of embodied conversational agents.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix A page 23
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:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?