From Chatterbots to Natural Interaction - Face to Face Communication with Embodied Conversational Agents

In this paper, we present a game of dice that combines multi-party communication with a tangible interface. The game has been used as a testbed to study typical conversational behavior patterns in interactions between human users and synthetic agents. In particular, we were interested in the question to what extent the interaction with the agent can be considered as natural. As an evaluation criterion, we propose to investigate whether the communicative behaviors of humans differ when conversing with an agent as opposed to conversing with other humans.

[1]  M. Argyle,et al.  Gaze and Mutual Gaze , 1994, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[2]  James C. Lester,et al.  Deictic Believability: Coordinated Gesture, Locomotion, and Speech in Lifelike Pedagogical Agents , 1999, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[3]  P. Lang.  The emotion probe. Studies of motivation and attention. , 1995, The American psychologist.

[4]  Ipke Wachsmuth,et al.  Max - A Multimodal Assistant in Virtual Reality Construction , 2003, Künstliche Intell..

[5]  Ruth Aylett,et al.  Caring for agents that care: Building empathic relations with synthetic agents , 2004 .

[6]  Justine Cassell,et al.  Human conversation as a system framework: designing embodied conversational agents , 2001 .

[7]  Joseph Weizenbaum,et al.  ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine , 1966, CACM.

[8]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Helper agent: designing an assistant for human-human interaction in a virtual meeting space , 2000, CHI.

[9]  Elisabeth André,et al.  Catch me if you can: exploring lying agents in social settings , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[10]  Thomas Rist,et al.  Towards a simulation of conversations with expressive embodied speakers and listeners , 2003, Proceedings 11th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension.

[11]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  Eye gaze patterns in conversations: there is more to conversational agents than meets the eyes , 2001, CHI.

[12]  Yukiko I. Nakano,et al.  Towards a Model of Face-to-Face Grounding , 2003, ACL.

[13]  Thomas Rist,et al.  CrossTalk: An Interactive Installation with Animated Presentation Agents , 2002 .

[14]  A. Kendon.  Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[15]  Mitsuru Ishizuka,et al.  Social role awareness in animated agents , 2001, AGENTS '01.

[16]  Stacy Marsella,et al.  PsychSim: Modeling Theory of Mind with Decision-Theoretic Agents , 2005, IJCAI.

[17]  W. Lewis Johnson,et al.  Animated Agents for Procedural Training in Virtual Reality: Perception, Cognition, and Motor Control , 1999, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[18]  David R. Traum,et al.  Embodied agents for multi-party dialogue in immersive virtual worlds , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[19]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Where to look: a study of human-robot engagement , 2004, IUI '04.

[20]  Jörg R. Bergmann.  Haustiere als kommunikative Ressourcen , 1988 .

[21]  Norbert Reithinger,et al.  SmartKom: adaptive and flexible multimodal access to multiple applications , 2003, ICMI '03.

[22]  Catherine Pelachaud,et al.  Embodied contextual agent in information delivering application , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[23]  P. Ekman.  Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace , 1985 .

[24]  Gernot A. Finkco.  Developing HMM-Based Recognizers with ESMERALDA , 1999 .

[25]  O. John.  The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. , 1990 .

[26]  Joakim Gustafson,et al.  The NICE Fairy-tale Game System , 2004, SIGDIAL Workshop.