Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersIn terms of overall success, the data indicate that use of an animated agent for childrencan successfully promote Performance, Satisfaction and Collaboration, with no apparentdetriment to other factors. The use of scenarios as design elements proved very effectivein designing for children.For adults, careful and subtle perceptual enhancements appear to be a better approachthan animated agents. The data here indicate that performance and collaboration may beenhanced, but only where the motivation pre-exists. Perceptual-based attention supportdoes not engender motivation, compared to the motivation provided to children by theanimated agent in AtGentSchool.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 74
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learners5. Additional experiments on Attention for OnlineLearning5.1 Acceptance of agents’ instructionsThis experiment investigated the feasibility of agent-provided assistance for two specificsituations, (1) when a previously-interrupted task is resumed, offer to open previouslyusedcontextual documents and (2) when a non-optimal task is begun, suggest a moresuitable alternative task. A paper-based task places participants in the situationsdescribed. The concern was to maximise the balance between helpfulness andannoyance. The results are discussed in terms of timing of interruption and social effects.Overall, the agent needs to take account of the human’s likely feelings towards anyintervention; interventions must be both useful and perceived to be useful.The experiment appears as a separate publication (Rudman & Zajicek, 2006). Forcompleteness however, a longer summary, from the AtGentive perspective, is included inAppendix 8.5.2 Animated agent’s gestures verbal discrepancyTwo experimental studies investigated attention distribution between verbal and nonverbalmessages conveyed by an Embodied Conversational Agents (ECA). The studyadapts the Stroop task paradigm 16 , widely used in cognitive psychology, to studyexecutive attention in human-agent interaction. Analysing reaction times provides areliable procedure to understand the effect of non-verbal communication (agent postureand facial expressions) on verbal comprehension (written text). The research focused onthe following main questions.1. Are non verbal messages conveyed by virtual bodies attended to?2. And, if yes, do they facilitate or inhibit verbal communication?The first study used the animated agent “Colette” (later renamed AtGentiGirl), as used inAtGentNet. In the first experiment, Emotion on the part of the agent was presentedalongside an emotion word. The two emotions may agree or conflict. Participants wereasked to evaluate if the word displayed on the screen was a positive or a negative bypressing one of two pre-set keys. Time and accuracy were measured. A clearinterference effect was found for accuracy, but not for speed.In order to explain this effect, a second investigation was conducted. This aimed toreproduce the results of the first study, but with a number of methodologicalmodifications and improvements. In particular, an additional test was introduced, toaddress memory retention – participants were invited to recognise the list of wordspresented in the experiment from a set of distracters.Results provided mixed support to the persona effect. Accuracy measurements showeda strong conflict between consistent and inconsistent conditions, confirming that nonverbalcues from the agent were processed and interfered with word naming. Analysis of16 The Stroop effect displays colour words (such as “Green”) using non-matching coloured ink(such as “Green” printed in red ink). This effect makes naming the ink colour very difficultDel <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 75
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: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 60 and 61: CollaborationAtGentive IST-4-027529
Page 88 and 89: DescriptionAtGentive IST-4-027529-S
Page 90 and 91: Integratability:AtGentive IST-4-027
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
The effects of a computer agent’s
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
4. ResultsAtGentive IST-4-027529-ST
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Additional pedagogical investigatio
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
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?