Development and Perception Evaluation of Culture-Specific Gaze Behaviors of Virtual Agents

  • Tomoko KodaEmail author
  • Taku Hirano
  • Takuto Ishioh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10498)


Gaze plays an important role in human-human communication. Adequate gaze control of a virtual agent is also essential for successful and believable human-agent interaction. Researchers on IVA have developed gaze control models by taking account of gaze duration, frequency, and timing of gaze aversion. However, none of this work has considered cultural differences in gaze behaviors. We aimed to investigate cultural differences in gaze behaviors and their perception by developing virtual agents with Japanese gaze behaviors, American gaze behaviors, hybrid gaze behaviors, and full gaze behaviors. We then compared their effects on the impressions of the agents and interactions. Our experimental results with Japanese participants suggest that the impression of the agent is affected by participants’ shyness and familiarity of the gaze patterns performed by the agent.


Gaze Shyness Intelligent virtual agents Non-verbal behavior Cross-culture Perception Evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Argyle, M., Cook, M.: Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge University Press Cambridge (1976)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bayliss, A., Paul, M., Cannon, P., Tipper, S.: Gaze cuing and affective judgments of objects: I like what you look at. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13(6), l06l–1066 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pelachaud, C., Bilvi, M.: Modelling gaze behavior for conversational agents. In: Rist, T., Aylett, Ruth S., Ballin, D., Rickel, J. (eds.) IVA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2792, pp. 93–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-39396-2_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, J., Marsella, S., Traum, D., Gratch, J., Lance, B.: The rickel gaze model: a window on the mind of a virtual human. In: Pelachaud, C., Martin, J.-C., André, E., Chollet, G., Karpouzis, K., Pelé, D. (eds.) IVA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4722, pp. 296–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74997-4_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cafaro, A., Gaito, R., Vilhjálmsson, H.H.: Animating idle gaze in public places. In: Ruttkay, Z., Kipp, M., Nijholt, A., Vilhjálmsson, H.H. (eds.) IVA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5773, pp. 250–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04380-2_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bee, N., Pollock, C., André, E., Walker, M.: Bossy or wimpy: expressing social dominance by combining gaze and linguistic behaviors. In: Allbeck, J., Badler, N., Bickmore, T., Pelachaud, C., Safonova, A. (eds.) IVA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6356, pp. 265–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15892-6_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ishii, R., Miyajima, T., Fujita, K., Nakano, Y.: Avatar’s gaze control to facilitate conversational turn-taking in virtual-space multi-user voice chat system. In: Gratch, J., Young, M., Aylett, R., Ballin, D., Olivier, P. (eds.) IVA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4133, p. 458. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11821830_47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishii, R., et al.: Avatar’s Gaze Control to Facilitate Conversation in Virtual-Space Multi-User Voice Chat System. J. of Human Interface 10(1), 87–94 (2008). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones, W.H., Russell, D.: The social reticence scale: An objective instrument to measure shyness. Journal of Personality Assessment 46(6), 629–631 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheek, J.M., Buss, A.H.: 1981 Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41, 330–339 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daly, S.: Behavioral correlates of social anxiety. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 17, 117–120 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koda, T., Ogura, M., Matsui, Yu.: Shyness level and sensitivity to gaze from agents - are shy people sensitive to agent’s gaze? In: Traum, D., Swartout, W., Khooshabeh, P., Kopp, S., Scherer, S., Leuski, A. (eds.) IVA 2016. LNCS, vol. 10011, pp. 359–363. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rehm, M., et al.: From Observation to Simulation - Generating Culture Specific Behavior for Interactive Systems. AI & Society 24, 267–280 (2009). SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koda, T., et al.: Avatar Culture: Cross-Cultural Evaluations of Avatar Facial Expressions. AI & Society, pp. 237–250 (2009). SpringerGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kühne, V., Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, Nicole C.: Using linguistic alignment to enhance learning experience with pedagogical agents: the special case of dialect. In: Aylett, R., Krenn, B., Pelachaud, C., Shimodaira, H. (eds.) IVA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8108, pp. 149–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40415-3_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finkelstein, S., Yarzebinski, E., Vaughn, C., Ogan, A., Cassell, J.: The effects of culturally congruent educational technologies on student achievement. In: Lane, H.Chad, Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED 2013. LNCS, vol. 7926, pp. 493–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, L., et al.: Tactical language and culture training systems: using artificial intelligence to teach foreign languages and cultures. In: Proc. of IAAI, pp. 73–83 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aylett, R., et al.: But that was in another country: agents and intercultural empathy. In: Proceedings AAMAS, pp. 329–336 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayo, C., La France, M.: Gaze direction in interracial dyadic communication. In: Harper, R.G., et al. (ed.) Meeting of Eastan Psychological Association (1978)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elzinga, R.H.: Temporal Organization of Conversation, Sociolinguistics Newsletter 9(2), 29–31 (1978)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cook, M., Smith, M.C.: The Role of Gaze in Impression Formation. Br. J. Clinical Psychology 14, 19–25 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fukayama, A., et al.: Messages embedded in gaze of interface agents - impression management with agent’s gaze. In: Proc. of the SIGCHI (CHI 2002), pp. 41–48. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cassell, J., Obed E.T., Prevost, S.: Turn taking versus discourse structure. In: Machine conversations, pp. 143–153. Springer, US (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gambi, C., Staudte, M., Torsten, J.: The role of prosody and gaze in turn-end anticipation. In: Procs. of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hall, E.T.: The hidden dimension, Doubleday and Company (1966)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aikawa, A.: A study on the reliability and validity of a scale to measure shyness as a trait. The Japanese Journal of Psychology 62(3), 149–155 (1991). (in Japanese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information Science and TechnologyOsaka Institute of TechnologyOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Information Science and TechnologyOsaka Institute of TechnologyOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations