skip to main content
10.1145/325737.325781acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

More than just a pretty face: affordances of embodiment

Authors Info & Claims
Published:09 January 2000Publication History

ABSTRACT

Prior research into embodied interface agents has found that users like them and find them engaging. In this paper, we argue that embodiment can serve an even stronger function if system designers use actual human conversational protocols in the design of the interface. Communicative behaviors such as salutations and farewells, conversational turn-taking with interruptions, and referring to objects using pointing gestures are examples of protocols that all native speakers of a language already know how to perform and that can thus be leveraged in an intelligent interface. We discuss how these protocols are integrated into Rea, an embodied, multi-modal conversational interface agent who acts as a real-estate salesperson, and we show why embodiment is required for their successful implementation.

References

  1. 1.Andre, E., Rist, T., Mueller, J. Integrating Reactive and Scripted Behaviors in a Life-Like Presentation Agent. In Proceedings of Agents '98 (Minneapolis/St. Paul, May 1998), ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.Azarbayejani, A., Wren, C. and Pentland A. Real-time 3-D tracking of the human body. In Proceedings of IMAGE'COM 96, (Bordeaux, France, May 1996).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.Ball, G., Ling, D., Kurlander, D., Miller, D., Pugh, D., Skelly, T., Stankosky, A., Thiel, D., Van Dantzich, M. and T. Wax. Lifelike computer characters: the persona project at Microsoft Research. In Software Agents, J. M. Bradshaw (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.Boyle, E., Anderson, A., and Newlands, A. The Effects of Visibility in a Cooperative Problem Solving Task. Language and Speech 37(l), 1994. l-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.Cassell, J. "Embodied Conversation: Integrating Face and Gesture into Automatic Spoken Dialogue Systems." In Luperfoy (ed.), Spoken Dialogue Systems. (to appear) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.Cassell, J., Bickmore, J., Billinghurst, M., Campbell, L., Chang, K., Vilhjalmsson, H., Yan, H. "Embodiment in Conversational Interfaces: Real', ACM CHI 99 Conference Proceedings, Pittsburgh, PA, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.Cassell, J., Bickmore, J., Campbell, L., Vilhjblmsson, H., Yan, H. Human Conversation as a System Framework: Designing Embodied Conversational Agents, in Cassell, J. editor, Embodied Conversational Agents, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.Cassell, J., Pelachaud, C., Badler, N.I., Steedman, M., Achorn, B., Beckett, T., Douville, B., Prevost, S. and Stone, M. Animated conversation: rule-based generation of facial display, gesture and spoken intonation for multiple conversational agents. Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH '94 Proceedings), 28(4): 413-420. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.Cassell, J. and Thbrisson, K. The Power of a Nod and a Glance: Envelope vs. Emotional Feedback in Animated Conversational Agents. Journal of Applied Art@ial Intelligence, in press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.Cassell, J., Torres, 0. and Prevost, S. Turn taking vs. Discourse Structure: how best to model multimodal conversation. In Wilks (ed.) Machine Conversations. Kluwer, The Hague, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.Chovil, N. Discourse-Oriented Facial Displays in Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 163-I 94, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.CLIPS Reference Manual Version 6.0. Technical Report, Number JSC-25012, Software Technology Branch, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.Finin, T., Fritzson, R. KQML as an Agent Communication Language. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'94, November 1994), ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.Keisler, S., and Sproull, L. "Social" Human-Computer Interaction. In B. Friedman (Ed) Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology. CSLI Publications, New York, 1997. 191-200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15.Kendon, A. Conducting Interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press. New York. 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.Koda, T., and Maes, P. Agents with faces: The effect of personification. Proceedings of the F$h IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (RO-MAN '96). 189-l 94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.Lester, J., Converse, S., Kahler, S., Barlow, S., Stone, B., and Bhogal, R. The Persona Effect: Affective Impact of Animated Pedagogical Agents. In S. Pemberton (Ed.), Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI'97 Conference Proceedings. 359-366. New York: ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18.McNeil1, D. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. University of Chicago Press. 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.Prevost, S., Hodgson, P., Cook, L., and Churchill, E. Face-to-Face Interfaces. In M. Altom and M. Williams (Eds.), Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI'99 Extended Abstracts. 244-245. New York: ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 20.Ricke1, J., and Johnson, L. Task-Oriented Dialogs with Animated Agents in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the Worlcshop on Embodied Conversational Characters (Tahoe City, California, October 1998). 39-46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.Stone, M. Modality in Dialogue: Planning, Pragmatics, and Computation. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 22.Thbrisson, K. R. Communicative Humanoids: A Computational Model of Psychosocial Dialogue Skills. PhD Thesis, MIT Media Laboratory, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 23.Takeuchi, A., and Naito, T. Situated facial displays: Towards social interaction. In I. Katz, R. Mack, L. Marks, M. Rosson, and J. Nielsen (Eds.), Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI'95 Conference Proceedings. 450-455. New York: ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. More than just a pretty face: affordances of embodiment

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        IUI '00: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces
        January 2000
        288 pages
        ISBN:1581131348
        DOI:10.1145/325737
        • Chairmen:
        • Doug Riecken,
        • David Benyon,
        • Henry Lieberman

        Copyright © 2000 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 9 January 2000

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader