Quantifying Collaboration with a Co-Creative Drawing Agent

This article describes a new technique for quantifying creative collaboration and applies it to the user study evaluation of a co-creative drawing agent. We present a cognitive framework called creative sense-making that provides a new method to visualize and quantify the interaction dynamics of creative collaboration, for example, the rhythm of interaction, style of turn taking, and the manner in which participants are mutually making sense of a situation. The creative sense-making framework includes a qualitative coding technique, interaction coding software, an analysis method, and the cognitive theory behind these applications. This framework and analysis method are applied to empirical studies of the Drawing Apprentice collaborative sketching system to compare human collaboration with a co-creative AI agent vs. a Wizard of Oz setup. The analysis demonstrates how the proposed technique can be used to analyze interaction data using continuous functions (e.g., integrations and moving averages) to measure and evaluate how collaborations unfold through time.

[1]  Z. Rucińska,et al.  Enactive account of pretend play and its application to therapy , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[2]  Brian Magerko,et al.  An Enactive Characterization of Pretend Play , 2015, Creativity & Cognition.

[3]  R. Sawyer,et al.  Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. , 2009, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.

[4]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation , 2007, CACM.

[5]  David Vernon,et al.  Enaction as a conceptual framework for developmental cognitive robotics , 2010, Paladyn J. Behav. Robotics.

[6]  Karl J. Friston The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  Brian Magerko,et al.  Empirically Studying Participatory Sense-Making in Abstract Drawing with a Co-Creative Cognitive Agent , 2016, IUI.

[8]  J. Fleiss Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. , 1971 .

[9]  M. Boden The creative mind : myths & mechanisms , 1991 .

[10]  Celine Latulipe,et al.  Creativity factor evaluation: towards a standardized survey metric for creativity support , 2009, C&C '09.

[11]  Simon Colton,et al.  Creativity Versus the Perception of Creativity in Computational Systems , 2008, AAAI Spring Symposium: Creative Intelligent Systems.

[12]  Simon Colton,et al.  Computational Creativity: The Final Frontier? , 2012, ECAI.

[13]  Maria Adler,et al.  Enaction Toward A New Paradigm For Cognitive Science , 2016 .

[14]  Celine Latulipe,et al.  Triangulating the personal creative experience: self-report, external judgments, and physiology , 2012, Graphics Interface.

[15]  MARY LOU MAHER,et al.  COMPARISON OF DESIGNERS USING A TANGIBLE USER INTERFACE AND A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE AND THE IMPACT ON SPATIAL COGNITION , 2005 .

[16]  M. Auvray,et al.  Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment , 2009 .

[17]  Stefan Benus,et al.  Variability and stability in collaborative dialogues: turn-taking and filled pauses , 2009, INTERSPEECH.

[18]  Murray Turoff,et al.  The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications , 1976 .

[19]  Giulio Sandini,et al.  RobotCub: an open framework for research in embodied cognition , 2004, 4th IEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2004..

[20]  A. L. Baylor Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: role of visual presence and appearance , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[21]  E. D. Paolo,et al.  Making Sense in Participation: An Enactive Approach to Social Cognition , 2008 .

[22]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Creativity Support Tools: Report From a U.S. National Science Foundation Sponsored Workshop , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[23]  E. D. Paolo,et al.  Participatory sense-making , 2007 .

[24]  M. Rohde,et al.  Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing , 2008 .

[25]  Todd Lubart,et al.  How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and commentary on the Special Issue , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[26]  D. Vernon Artificial Cognitive Systems: A Primer , 2014 .

[27]  H. D. Jaegher,et al.  Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation , 2009 .

[28]  A. Furnham,et al.  Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality: A Critical Review of the Scattered Literature , 2006, Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs.

[29]  J. Kevin O'Regan,et al.  Is There Something Out There? Inferring Space from Sensorimotor Dependencies , 2003, Neural Computation.

[30]  Brian Magerko,et al.  An Enactive Model of Creativity for Computational Collaboration and Co-creation , 2015, Creativity in the Digital Age.

[31]  Björn Niehaves,et al.  Towards a Unified Design Theory for Creativity Support Systems , 2012, DESRIST.

[32]  Tom Froese,et al.  Embodied social interaction constitutes social cognition in pairs of humans: A minimalist virtual reality experiment , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[33]  A. Glenberg What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[34]  Yanna B. Popova,et al.  Narrativity and enaction: the social nature of literary narrative understanding , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[35]  Andruid Kerne,et al.  An Experimental Method for Measuring the Emergence of New Ideas in Information Discovery , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[36]  Hanne De Jaegher,et al.  We can work it out: an enactive look at cooperation , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[37]  Raymond J. Dolan,et al.  Exploration, novelty, surprise, and free energy minimization , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[38]  E. D. Paolo,et al.  Can social interaction constitute social cognition? , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  Tom Froese,et al.  The Enactive Torch: A New Tool for the Science of Perception , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Haptics.

[40]  Douglas H. Fisher,et al.  USING AI TO EVALUATE CREATIVE DESIGNS , 2012 .

[41]  Linda Candy,et al.  Computer support for creativity , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[42]  Ellen Yi-Luen Do,et al.  Computing harmony with PerLogicArt: perceptual logic inspired collaborative art , 2011, C&C '11.

[43]  Magnus Haake,et al.  Design of animated pedagogical agents - A look at their look , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[44]  E. D. Paolo,et al.  From participatory sense-making to language: there and back again , 2015 .

[45]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A free energy principle for the brain , 2006, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[46]  Geraint A. Wiggins,et al.  A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems , 2006, Knowl. Based Syst..

[47]  Geraint A. Wiggins Searching for computational creativity , 2006, New Generation Computing.

[48]  O. Oullier,et al.  Embodied economics: how bodily information shapes the social coordination dynamics of decision-making , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[49]  Karl J. Friston The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[50]  Pierre Steiner,et al.  From autonomy to heteronomy (and back): The enaction of social life , 2009 .

[51]  Tom Ziemke,et al.  Enactive artificial intelligence: Investigating the systemic organization of life and mind , 2009, Artif. Intell..