Real faces and robot faces: The effects of representation on computer-mediated communication

While there is much research regarding audio, video and text based communication, there has been little work concerning how users communicate via avatars-that is graphical embodiments of remote users. The aim of this study was to explore the effects of different forms of representation, by examining how users communicate via high quality video images and basic graphical representations in different communicative contexts. Communication analysis revealed that video images facilitate turn-taking, although they are not necessarily perceived very differently from basic avatars in terms of questionnaire responses. Using eye-tracking techniques, we found that while participants generally gaze more often at video images, this is dependent on the communicative context and is not necessarily an advantage in a problem-solving situation. This study has demonstrated the value of employing various measures and tasks in order to evaluate computer-mediated interactions. The results have implications for the use of video and graphical representations in computer mediated communication and suggest that the benefits of video must be considered in relation to the user's requirements (e.g. communication process versus outcome) and context in which the system is to be applied (e.g. problem-solving or social).

[1]  Roel Vertegaal,et al.  Explaining effects of eye gaze on mediated group conversations:: amount or synchronization? , 2002, CSCW '02.

[2]  Lee Sproull,et al.  My partner is a real dog: cooperation with social agents , 1996, CSCW '96.

[3]  John C. Tang,et al.  What video can and cannot do for collaboration: A case study , 1993, MULTIMEDIA '93.

[4]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  Teaching Talk: Strategies for Production and Assessment , 1985 .

[5]  D. Rutter.  Communicating by telephone , 1987 .

[6]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk With Technology , 1995, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[7]  Jean Vanderdonckt,et al.  People and Computers XV—Interaction without Frontiers , 2001, Springer London.

[8]  Mel Slater,et al.  The impact of eye gaze on communication using humanoid avatars , 2001, CHI.

[9]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction. , 1997 .

[10]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  One is not enough: multiple views in a media space , 1993, INTERCHI.

[11]  John C. Tang,et al.  What video can and cannot do for collaboration: A case study , 2005, Multimedia Systems.

[12]  Y. Rim.  Decisions involving risk in dyads. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[13]  G. Beattie,et al.  A further investigation of the cognitive interference hypothesis of gaze patterns during conversation , 1981 .

[14]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Video-Mediated Communication , 1997 .

[15]  Mel Slater,et al.  The impact of avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived quality of communication in a shared immersive virtual environment , 2003, CHI '03.

[16]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[17]  James C. Lester,et al.  Integrating Affective Computing Into Animated Tutoring Agents , 1997 .

[18]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[19]  John C. McCarthy,et al.  Measures of Process , 1996 .

[20]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  What mix of video and audio is useful for small groups doing remote real-time design work? , 1995, CHI '95.

[21]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Coordination of communication: effects of shared visual context on collaborative work , 2000, CSCW '00.

[22]  Steven D. Silver,et al.  Status Differentiation and Information Exchange in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Idea Generation* , 1994 .

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

[24]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[25]  T. Koda,et al.  Agents with faces: the effect of personification , 1996, Proceedings 5th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication. RO-MAN'96 TSUKUBA.

[26]  A. Anderson,et al.  The Effects of Visibility on Dialogue and Performance in a Cooperative Problem Solving Task , 1994 .

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

[28]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Agents with Faces: The Effects of Personification of Agents , 1996 .

[29]  Jean Carletta,et al.  Placement of Authority and Communication Pattern in Workplace Groups --- the Consequences for Innovation , 2022 .

[30]  Ann Lantz,et al.  Meetings in a distributed group of experts: Comparing face-to-face, chat and collaborative virtual environments , 2001, Behav. Inf. Technol..

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

[32]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Conversations Over Video Conferences: An Evaluation of the Spoken Aspects of Video-Mediated Communication , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. , 1977 .

[34]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  Multi-mediating Multi-party Interactions , 1999, INTERACT.

[35]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Where do helpers look?: gaze targets during collaborative physical tasks , 2003, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[36]  Shinji Takao.  The effects of narrow-band width multipoint videoconferencing on group decision making and turn distribution , 1999 .

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

[38]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  Video data and video links in mediated communication: what do users value? , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[39]  Steve Benford,et al.  Fragmented interaction: establishing mutual orientation in virtual environments , 1998, CSCW '98.

[40]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  How might people interact with agents , 1994, CACM.

[41]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  The value of video in work at a distance: Addition or distraction? , 2000, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[42]  Hao Yan,et al.  More than just a pretty face: affordances of embodiment , 2000, IUI '00.

[43]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  Eye-Tracking Explorations in Multimedia Communications , 2001, BCS HCI/IHM.

[44]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Using a human face in an interface , 1994, CHI '94.

[45]  M D Wilson.  Metaphor to Personality: the role of animation in intelligent interface agents , 1997 .

[46]  John Bowers,et al.  Talk and embodiment in collaborative virtual environments , 1996, CHI.

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

[48]  Michael Gardner,et al.  The impact of status and audio conferencing technology on business meetings , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[49]  Susan K. Schnipke,et al.  Trials and tribulations of using an eye-tracking system , 2000, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[50]  Masood Masoodian,et al.  Video Support for Shared Work-Space Interaction: An Empirical Study , 1995, Interact. Comput..