Advertisement

Judging Laura: Perceived Qualities of a Mediated Human Versus an Embodied Agent

  • Renate ten Ham
  • Mariët Theune
  • Ard Heuvelman
  • Ria Verleur
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3661)

Abstract

Increasingly, embodied agents take over tasks which are traditionally performed by humans. But how do users perceive these embodied agents? In this paper, we describe an experiment in which we compared a real person and a virtual character giving route instructions. The voice, the outfit and the gestures were kept (close to) identical for both cases. The participants judged them, among other things, on trustworthiness, personality and presentation style. In contrast to the outcome of earlier investigations, in most categories the agent scored better or comparable to the human guide. This suggests that embodied agents are suitable to take the place of humans in information-giving applications, provided that natural sounding speech and natural looking nonverbal behaviors can be achieved.

Keywords

Nonverbal Behavior Virtual Character Real Person Separate Item Human Voice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beun, R.J., de Vos, E., Witteman, C.: Embodied conversational agents: effects on memory performance and anthropomorphisation. Proc. IVA, 315–319 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N.E., Kam, K., Fischer, J.: Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. J. of Communication special issue: Research on the Relationship between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Emerging Integrations (2002), 657–677 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E.: Embodied Conversational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  4. Cattell, R.B., Cattell, H.E.P.: Personality structure and the new fifth edition of the 16PF. Educational and Psychological Measurement 6, 926–937 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dehn, J., van Mulken, S.: The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 52, 1–2 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Isbister, K., Nass, C.: Consistency of personality in interactive characters: Verbal cues, nonverbal cues and user characteristics. Int. J. of Human Computer Studies 53, 251–267 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. King, W.J., Ohya, J.: The representation of agents: Anthropomorphism, agency and intelligence. In: CHI 1996 Conference Companion, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 289–290 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. Koda, T., Maes, P.: Agents with faces: The effect of personification. Proc. IEEE Robot-Human Communication (1996)Google Scholar
  9. Kopp, S., Tepper, P., Cassell, J.: Towards integrated microplanning of language and iconic gesture for multimodal output. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, ICMI (2004)Google Scholar
  10. Lang, P.J.: The Cognitive Psychophysiology of Emotion: Anxiety and the Anxiety Disorders, Hillsdale, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1985)Google Scholar
  11. Lester, J., Zettlemoyer, L., Gregoire, J., Bares, W.: Explanatory lifelike avatars: Performing user centered tasks in 3D learning environments. In: Proc. Autonomous Agents 1999. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  12. McBreen, H., Shade, P., Jack, M., Wyard, P.: Experimental assessment of the effectiveness of synthetic personae for multi-modal E-retail applications. In: Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents (2000), pp. 39–45 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. Nijholt, A.: Where computers disappear, virtual humans appear. Computers and Graphics 28 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  15. Rist, T., Baldes, S., Gebhard, P., Kipp, M., Klesen, M., Rist, P., Schmitt, M.: CrossTalk: An interactive installation with animated presentation agents. In: Proc. of COSIGN 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. Sproull, L., Subramani, R., Kiesler, S., Walker, J., Waters, K.: When the interface is a face. Human-Computer Interaction 11, 97–124 (1996); Reprinted in Friedman, B.: Human values and the design of technology. CLSI Publications (1997)Google Scholar
  17. Takeuchi, A., Naito, T.: Situated facial displays: Towards social interaction. In: Proc. SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (1995), pp. 450–455 (1995)Google Scholar
  18. Theune, M., Heylen, D., Nijholt, A.: Generating embodied information presentations. In: Stock, O., Zancanaro, M. (eds.) Multimodal Intelligent Information Presentation, pp. 47–70. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renate ten Ham
    • 1
  • Mariët Theune
    • 1
  • Ard Heuvelman
    • 2
  • Ria Verleur
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science 
  2. 2.Department of Behavioral SciencesUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations