A Human Based Perception Model for Cooperative Intelligent Virtual Agents

  • Pilar Herrero
  • Angélica de Antonio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2519)


Interactive virtual worlds provide a powerful medium for experimental learning and entertainment. Nowadays, virtual environments often incorporate human-like embodied virtual agents with varying degrees of intelligence, getting what we call Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVAs). Collaboration between agents can be very important to reach aware of what is surrounding each agent each and every moment. This paper tries to find how to endow IVAs with a human perceptual model based on the reinterpretation of one of the more successful awareness models for Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).


Virtual Environment Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Situation Awareness Peripheral Vision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, R. Thibos, L. The Relationship Between Acuity for Gratings and for Tumbling-E Letters inPeripheral Vision.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Balcisoy, S. Kallmann, M. Torre, R. Fua, P. Thalmann, D. Interaction Techniques with Virtual Humans in Mixed Environments. In International Symposium on Mixed Reality, Tokyo, Japan, 2001 (extended version to be publishedin Presence, MIT Press).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Beckmann, P. J. Legge G. E. Effects of Preneural Factors on Letter Acuity in Central and Peripheral Vision. Consulted in 2002
  4. 5.
    Benford, S.D., and Fahlén, L.E. A spatial model of interaction in large virtual environments, in Proc. Third European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’93), Milano, Italy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993, pp. 109–124.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Benford, S. et al. User Embodiment in Collaborative Virtual Environments Proc. ACM CHI95. 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Blumberg, B. Go with the Flow: Synthetic Vision for Autonomous Animated Creatures. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents’97), Marina del Rey, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Card, S., Moran, T., & Newell, A. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. N.J., Erlbaum. 1983.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Chenney Stevephen Sensing for Autonomous Agents in Virtual Environments,1996.
  9. 10.
    Chopra-Khullar, S. and Badler, N. “Where to look? Automating attending behaviors of virtual human characters,” Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems 4(1/2), 2001, pp. 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 11.
    Das, S. K. Grecu, D. L. COGENT: cognitive agent to amplify human perception and cognition.. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, June 5-7, 2000, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Dourish, P., Bellotti, V.: “Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces”, in: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on CSCW. Toronto / Canada, Oktober 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Endsley. M., Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of Human Factors Society and Annual Meeting, volume 1, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Endsley. M. Towards a theory of situation awareness. Technical report, Texas Technical University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Greenhalgh, C., Large Scale Collaborative Virtual Environments, Doctoral Thesis. University of Nottingham. October 1997Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Herrero P., De Antonio A., Segovia J. Is the Awareness of Avatars in a Virtual World Different from Human Awareness? Workshop on the Future of Cves: “Voltage in the Milky Night: The Future of CVE’s” The Third International Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments. ACM Collaborative Virtual Environments 2000. San Francisco (California). USA. September 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Herrero P., De Antonio A., Benford S., Greenhalgh C., Increasing the Coherence between Human Beings and Virtual Agents Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Bologna, Italy, July, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Hill, R. Han, C. van Lent, M. Perceptually Driven Cognitive Mapping of Urban Environments. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Bologna, Italy, July, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Hill, R. Kim, Y. van Lent. M. Anticipating Where to Look: Predicting the Movements of Mobile Agents in Complex Terrain. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Bologna, Italy, July, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Hill, R. Han, C. van Lent, M. Applying Perceptually Driven Cognitive Mapping To Virtual Urban Environments. Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-2002) in Edmonton, Canada.2002.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Hill R. Soar: An Architecture for Human Behavior Representation. Invited Panel Member and Presentatio at the Workshop on Human Behavioral Representation, Conference on Modeling and Simulation, American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), August 9-11, Portland, Oregon, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Hill, R. Modeling Perceptual Attention in Virtual Humans. Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, Orlando, FL, May 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Howarth, P. A. and Costello P.J., Contemporary Ergonomics 1997, Ed. S.A. Robertson, Taylor and Francis London, 1997, pp 109–116.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Kieras, D. E. & Meyer, D. E. The EPIC architecture for modelling human informationprocessing and performance: a brief introduction. Technical Report TR-94/ONR-EPIC-1,University of Michigan. 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Levi, D.M., Klein, S.A. & Hariharan, S. Suppressive and Facilitatory Spatial Interactions in Foveal Vision: Foveal Crowding is simple contrast masking. Journal of Vision, 2, 140–166. 2002. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 26.
    Levi, D.M., Hariharan, S. & Klein, S.A. Suppressive and Facilitatory Spatial Interactions in Peripheral Vision: Peripheral Crowding is neither size invariant nor simple contrast masking. Journal of Vision, 2, 167–177.2002. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 27.
    Nilsson, N. Teleo-Reactive Programs and the Triple-Tower Architecture. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 5, Section B, pp. 99–110. 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Noser, H., A Behavioral Animation System Based on L-systems and Synthetic Sensors for Actors. PhD Thesis. École Polytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne. 1997Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Pew R.W. and Mavor, A.S. editors. Modelling Human and Organizational Behaviour: Application to Military Simulations. National Academy Press, Wash., D.C. 1998.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Rickel, J. Gratch, J. Hill, R. Marsella, S. and Swartout, W. “Steve Goes to Bosnia: Towards a New Generation of Virtual Humans for Interactive Experiences.” In AAAI Spring Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Entertainment, Stanford University, CA, March 20, 2001.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Rodden, Tom, Populating the Application: A Model of Awareness for Cooperative Applications, in Proc. ACM 1996 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’96), November 16-20, 1996, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, ACM Press, pp. 87–96.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Shively, R. J., Brickner, M., Silbiger J., A Computational Model of Situational Awareness Instantiated in MIDAS 1997Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Terzopoulos D., Tu X. and Grzeszczuk, R. Artificial fishes: Autonomous locomotion, perception, behavior, and learning in a simulated physical world. Journal of Artificial Life, 1, 4, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    Terzopoulos D., Rabie T. F., Animat Vision: Active Vision in Artificial Animals, Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV’95), Cambridge, MA, USA, June, 1995.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Terzopoulos D. and Rabie, T.F. Animat Vision: Active Vision in Artificial Animals. Published in Videre: Journal of Computer Vision Research, 1(1):2–19, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    Terzopoulos D. Biological and Evolutionary Models give life to self-animating graphical characters with bodies,brains, behavior, perception, learning, and cognition. Artificial Life for Computer Graphics. Communications of the ACM August 1999/Vol. 42, No. 8Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Thalmann, D. The Foundations to Build a Virtual Human Society, Proc. Intelligent Virtual Actors (IVA) 2001, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  37. 38.
    Thalmann, D. ANewGeneration of Synthetic Actors: the Interactive Perceptive Actors Proc.Pacific Graphics 96 Taipeh, Taiwan, August 1996.Google Scholar
  38. 40.
    Tu X. and Terzopoulos D., Artificial Fishes: Physics, Locomotion, Perception, Behaviour. Computer Graphics Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 94, pp 43–50, 1994.Google Scholar
  39. 41.
    Wang, Y. Thibos, L. Bradley, A. Effects of Refractive Error on Detection Acuity and Resolution Acuity in Peripheral Vision Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 38, 2134–2143.2002.Google Scholar
  40. 42.
    Yeap, W.K. and Jefferies, M.E. 1999. Computing a representation of the local environment. Artificial Intelligence 107:265–301.Google Scholar
  41. 43.
    Zhang W. and Hill, R. A Template-Based and Pattern-Driven Approach to Situation Awareness and Assessment in Virtual Humans. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, June 5-7, 2000, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pilar Herrero
    • 1
  • Angélica de Antonio
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultad de InformáticaUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid. Campus de MontegancedoMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations