Audience-Contingent Variation in Action Demonstrations for Humans and Computers

People may exhibit two kinds of modifications when demonstrating action for others: modifications to facilitate bottom-up, or sensory-based processing; and modifications to facilitate top-down, or knowledge-based processing. The current study examined actors' production of such modifications in action demonstrations for audiences that differed in their capacity for intentional reasoning. Actors' demonstrations of complex actions for a non-anthropomorphic computer system and for people (adult and toddler) were compared. Evidence was found for greater highlighting of top-down modifications in the demonstrations for the human audiences versus the computer audience. Conversely, participants highlighted simple perceptual modifications for the computer audience, producing more punctuated and wider ranging motions. This study suggests that people consider differences in their audiences when demonstrating action.

[1]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

[3]  W. Meyer,et al.  Some Effects of Praise and Blame on Perceived Ability and Affect , 1986 .

[4]  A. Woodward,et al.  Perception of acoustic correlates of major phrasal units by young infants , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[6]  C. Nass,et al.  Truth is beauty: researching embodied conversational agents , 2001 .

[7]  Sung-Bae Cho,et al.  Estimating the efficiency of recognizing gender and affect from biological motion , 2002, Vision Research.

[8]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Are Computers Gender-Neutral? Gender Stereotypic Responses to Computers , 1997 .

[9]  C. C. Levelt,et al.  Signal to Syntax; Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition , 1999, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[10]  Darren Newtson.  Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior. , 1973 .

[11]  D. Gentner,et al.  Similarity and the development of rules , 1998, Cognition.

[12]  J. Cassell,et al.  Embodied conversational agents , 2000 .

[13]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game , 2003, Science.

[14]  Darren Newtson,et al.  The perceptual organization of ongoing behavior , 1976 .

[15]  P. Rochat.  Early Social Cognition : Understanding Others in the First Months of Life , 1999 .

[16]  F. Pollick,et al.  Movement style, movement features, and the recognition of affect from human movement , 2008 .

[17]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Event structure in perception and conception. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  P. Jusczyk.  The discovery of spoken language , 1997 .

[19]  Dare A. Baldwin,et al.  Evidence for ‘motionese’: modifications in mothers’ infant-directed action , 2002 .

[20]  Punya Mishra,et al.  Affective Feedback from Computers and its Effect on Perceived Ability and Affect: A Test of the Computers as Social Actor Hypothesis , 2006 .

[21]  Rebecca J. Brand,et al.  Fine-Grained Analysis of Motionese: Eye Gaze, Object Exchanges, and Action Units in Infant-versus Adult-Directed Action. , 2007 .

[22]  Christopher G. Lewis.  The media equation: How people treat computers, televisions, and new media as real people and places , 1997 .

[23]  D. Levin,et al.  Thinking About Thinking in Computers , Robots , and People * , 2006 .

[24]  A. Fernald,et al.  Intonation and communicative intent in mothers' speech to infants: is the melody the message? , 1989, Child development.

[25]  D. Levin.  Thinking and seeing : visual metacognition in adults and children , 2004 .

[26]  Jodie A. Baird,et al.  Discerning intentions in dynamic human action , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[27]  Nicole Shechtman,et al.  Media inequality in conversation: how people behave differently when interacting with computers and people , 2003, CHI '03.

[28]  A. Fernald,et al.  Expanded Intonation Contours in Mothers' Speech to Newborns. , 1984 .

[29]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computer personalities be human personalities? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[30]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Using movement and intentions to understand simple events , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.