Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnersand bottom of the agent. This means there were eight possible place-directioncombinations for the interventions. The amount of these conditions was balanced andsystematically randomized for the participants.Figure 2. An example of the intervention objects relative to the agent.Figure 3. All possible locations for the agent and the intervention objects, superimposedon top of each other.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix B page 7
3.4 ProcedureAtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersThe laboratory was first introduced to the participant. Then, he or she was instructed tosit comfortably in front of the screen. After this, the participants completed a calibrationsequence (during which the coordinates were established on the screen). Before thetest, the participants were instructed as follows. First, they were told to focus their gazeto a black dot in the middle of the screen until the agent character appeared. Theparticipants were told to follow what happens on the screen, but they were not explicitlyinstructed as to what they should look at or what would happen on the screen after theagent character appeared. After the calibration and before the test, the participants wereallowed to read the instructions on the screen once more and perform one example taskthat allowed them to familiarize themselves with how to proceed with the experiment.Then, they were given the chance to ask any questions they might have had.The participants viewed the 24 stimuli in a systematically randomized order. Asdescribed previously, they were instructed to first focus their gaze on a black dot in themiddle of the screen. The agent appeared on the screen 3050 milliseconds into thestimulus. After 4900 ms, the agent gestured towards either of two interventions thatappeared simultaneously on the screen for 250 ms. The gesture was timed so that itstarted before the interventions appeared. The agent was hidden 10 seconds into thestimulus and the user was automatically forwarded after 11000 seconds to thestatements. The mouse cursor was hidden during the stimulus so that the user’s gazewould not be distracted by it. After this, the user was presented with the two true/falsestatements, for which he or she chose the answer with a mouse. The statements wereeither about the shape of the object (“e.g. the agent pointed toward a square”), or thecolor of the object (“e.g. the agent pointed toward a red object”), or the letter (“e.g. theagent pointed toward an R”). The user was moved to the next task after answering andconfirming the answer with a “forward” –button.After the test, the participants were asked if they had noticed the agent character’sgestures and if they thought the gestures had had an effect on their attention orperformance. Finally, they were debriefed and thanked.3.5 Data AnalysisThe numbers of fixations on defined areas of interest were calculated for each task andparticipant. The following five areas of interest were used: 1) the agent character 2) theagent character’s head 3) the intervention object that was the target of the agent’sgesture 4) the intervention object that was not the target of the agent’s gesture 5) themiddle of the screen where the participant was instructed to focus his attention in thebeginning of the task. A 30 pixel margin was used for these areas. Fixations occurringbefore the appearance of the agent at 3050 ms were discarded.8×2×2 within-subject analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed on the numbers offixations to the intervention objects and the statement answers data. The within-subjectfactors were the place of the intervention object (location), whether or not the agent waspointing to the object in question (direction), and the type of the gesture (gesture).Pairwise comparisons were performed using Bonferroni corrected two-tailed t-tests forfactors with significant effects.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix B page 8
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:
Page 128 and 129: 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?