Attentional Effect of Animated Character

Research has found that animated characters are capable of capturing users’ attention, engaging them in active tasks, and entertaining them. Such capabilities are pedagogical techniques that might contribute to an effective comprehensible multimedia presentation. Quality of voice has also been shown to be an important determinant of comprehension. The current study examines the effects of animated characters and voice types on comprehension and attention performance in learning from a multimedia presentation. Because animated characters rely on affective social responses to produce pedagogical benefits, there are also likely to be significant individual differences. This study investigates the influence of introversion/extroversion on the effectiveness of the presentations as well. A 3 (no character, nonanthropomorphic character, anthropomorphic character) x 2 (synthetic voice vs. human voice) factorial between-subject design was employed. While animated characters did not increase learning in the present study; results suggested that animated characters might be useful as a peripheral tool to retain learners’ attention and maintain engagement with the learning material. Results regarding the degree of participants’ extroversion (benefits appeared limited to introverted participants) suggest that personality should be taken into account in designing learning environments.

[1]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions , 1977 .

[2]  Julita Vassileva,et al.  Affective pedagogical agents and user persuasion , 2001, HCI.

[3]  Akikazu Takeuchi,et al.  Situated facial displays: towards social interaction , 1995, CHI '95.

[4]  Alistair G. Sutcliffe,et al.  Designing effective multimedia presentations , 1997, CHI.

[5]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Artificial life meets entertainment: lifelike autonomous agents , 1995, CACM.

[6]  Thomas Portele,et al.  Comparing the comprehensibility of different synthetic voices in a dual task experiment , 1998, SSW.

[7]  Jun Ohya,et al.  The representation of agents: anthropomorphism, agency, and intelligence , 1996, CHI Conference Companion.

[8]  P. H. Miller,et al.  Children's Attention Allocation, Understanding of Attention, and Performance on the Incidental Learning Task. , 1981 .

[9]  Mervyn Jack,et al.  Animated Conversational Agents in eCommerce Applications , 2000 .

[10]  Lee Sproull,et al.  When the Interface Is a Face , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[11]  Thomas Rist,et al.  WebPersona: a lifelike presentation agent for the World-Wide Web , 1998, Knowl. Based Syst..

[12]  Jonas Beskow,et al.  Animation of talking agents , 1997, AVSP.

[13]  P. Ekman,et al.  Relative importance of face, body, and speech in judgments of personality and affect. , 1980 .

[14]  David Wood,et al.  The effect of task conditions on the comprehensibility of synthetic speech , 2000, CHI.

[15]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Speech interfaces from an evolutionary perspective , 2000, CACM.

[16]  Susanne van Mulken,et al.  The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[17]  M. B. Rosson,et al.  Designing a quality voice: an analysis of listeners' reactions to synthetic voices , 1986, CHI '86.