Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnerswhile a computer user interacted with an agent. They found out that nearly 20 % of thetime was spent looking at the agent and over 50 % of the time reading the agent’sspeech bubble. However, in a computer program or a virtual environment, an agent’sfunction is often to guide the user to other elements or activities happening on the screeninstead of just drawing attention to itself. An example would be a situation where the useris working on a task and the agent will alert him or her to new information (such asreceived emails or messages). Thus, one challenge for designing agents and theirbehavior is to support the management of attention effectively. This means guiding anddirection an user’s attention in a way that is subtle and not too distracting.In the study by Witkowski and others (2001, 2003) attention was mostly directed to theagent character’s face. Other studies have also proven that facial expressions areeffective social cues in human-agent interaction (Partala & Surakka, 2004; Partala,Surakka, & Lahti, 2004; Vanhala et al., 2007). Besides facial expression, embodiedagents are also capable of using a multitude of gestures, movements and changes inbody language to convey emotions and emphasize or clarify what they arecommunicating. In fact, embodied agents can effectively mimic the same properties andbehavior that humans exhibit in face-to-face conversation (Cassell, 2000). Early studiesof task-oriented dialogues between a human and an agent by Deutsch (1974) haveclearly shown the importance of nonverbal communication in such tasks. Recent studiesby Marsi and van Rooden (2007) have shown that users prefer a non-verbal visualindication of an embodied system's internal state to a verbal indication.Despite the potential benefits of embodied computer agents, there is little empiricalevidence to help in designing characters and cues that are effective in guiding attention.Several studies have also had limitations, such as a lack of experimental conditions ordifferent focus of interest, as pointed out by Dehn and Van Mulken (2000). In manycases, the effects of using an embodied agent have been compared to having no agentat all. Thus, the results of those studies can be used to argue for using artificial agents ingeneral, but they are not particularly helpful in designing characteristics and behaviourfor agents. Task-oriented studies about agents with respect to learning and collaboratingwith users have also often focused solely on verbal dialogues, with less emphasis on thepotentially effective nonverbal cues that can be provided by the agents (Rickel andJohnson, 2000).Eye tracking is one established technique for determining the focus of a person’s visualattention at any particular time. By analyzing gaze paths, that is, sequences of saccadesand fixations, it is possible to determine not only where a person is looking and for howlong, but how and when his or her focus of attention changes (e.g. Hyrskykari et al.,2003; Merten & Conati, 2006). By utilizing eye tracking techniques we can, for example,study fixations of gaze to determine the proportion of time a user spends looking at anagent and other visual elements and cues on a computer screen. By analyzing gazepaths, we can study how an agent’s actions and gestures influence the direction ofusers’ visual attention.The aim of the present study was to get insight into the attention-guiding properties of anembodied computer agent. The objective was to get concrete, empirically validatedevidence concerning the effects of an agent character’s gestures and their potential toguide attention. To do this, we conducted an experiment consisting of tasks where anagent character used gestures to guide a user’s attention to visual information shown onthe screen. Our aim was to find out how varying the type and direction of the gesture andthe place of the agent affected the user’s visual attention. Another aim was to find outwhat effect, if any, this has on the user’s ability to remember the information the agentwas targeting. Gaze tracking was used to determine the focus of the user’s visualattention, and learning performance was investigated by having the user answerstatements about information shown on the screen.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix B page 5
3. Methods3.1 ParticipantsAtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learners17 participants completed the experiment. Seven of the participants were male and tenwere female, and their ages varied between 20 and 30. All of the participants had normalvision according to their own report.3.2 EquipmentThe experiment was performed in a soundproof laboratory. The experiment waspresented in an Internet Explorer browser in full screen mode. The screen resolution wasset to 1024 by 768 pixels on a 17” TFT monitor.Tobii 1750 was used for eye tracking and ClearView software by Tobii was used forrecording and analyzing the fixations and the gaze paths.3.3 StimuliAn animated agent called Matthew, created by Cantoche (seehttp://www.livingactor.com), was used in the study. The agent resembled a young boywith a cartoonish look and exaggerated head. We used two kinds of animated gesturesthat were predetermined for the agent to guide the user’s attention. In the first one, theagent used his eyes to glance at the object and in the second one, the glance was alsoaccompanied by a wave of the hand (see Figure 1). Thus, the agent character’s headand eyes moved in both of the cases. The place the agent appeared on the screen wasvaried between the left and the right side of the screen. On the 17” screen, the agentwas about 4 cm tall.Figure 1. The two types of the agent’s gestures used in the experiment.For the intervention objects, we used small colored geometric shapes that were about 70by 70 pixels in size as well as black letters that were of similar size. The interventionobjects were paired so that two objects of the same type appeared together (see Figure2). The objects were situated ao that they appeared on either side of the agent, at about5 cm from the agent’s approximated middle point. The direction of the interventions wasalso varied (see Figure 3). The pictures either appeared to the left and right or on the topDel <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix B page 6
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:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127: 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?