Advertisement

Who, Me? How Virtual Agents Can Shape Conversational Footing in Virtual Reality

  • Tomislav PejsaEmail author
  • Michael Gleicher
  • Bilge Mutlu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10498)

Abstract

The nonverbal behaviors of conversational partners reflect their conversational footing, signaling who in the group are the speakers, addressees, bystanders, and overhearers. Many applications of virtual reality (VR) will involve multiparty conversations with virtual agents and avatars of others where appropriate signaling of footing will be critical. In this paper, we introduce computational models of gaze and spatial orientation that a virtual agent can use to signal specific footing configurations. An evaluation of these models through a user study found that participants conformed to conversational roles signaled by the agent and contributed to the conversation more as addressees than as bystanders. We observed these effects in immersive VR, but not on a 2D display, suggesting an increased sensitivity to virtual agents’ footing cues in VR-based interfaces.

Keywords

Embodied conversational agents Virtual reality Gaze Orientation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrist, S., Mutlu, B., Gleicher, M.: Conversational gaze aversion for virtual agents. In: Aylett, R., Krenn, B., Pelachaud, C., Shimodaira, H. (eds.) IVA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8108, pp. 249–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40415-3_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrist, S., Pejsa, T., Mutlu, B., Gleicher, M.: Designing effective gaze mechanisms for virtual agents. In: Proc. CHI 2012, pp. 705–714 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Argyle, M., Cook, M.: Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge University Press (1976)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Argyle, M., Dean, J.: Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28, 289–304 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aron, A., Aron, E.N., Smollan, D.: Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(4), 596 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bailenson, J.N., Beall, A.C., Blascovich, J.: Gaze and task performance in shared virtual environments. The Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation 13(5), 313–320 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C., Loomis, J.M.: Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence 10(6), 583–598 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C., Loomis, J.M.: Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(7), 819–833 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohus, D., Horvitz, E.: Models for multiparty engagement in open-world dialog. In: Proc. SIGDIAL 2009, pp. 225–234 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bohus, D., Horvitz, E.: Multiparty turn taking in situated dialog: study, lessons, and directions. In: Proc. SIGDIAL 2011, pp. 98–109 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garau, M., Slater, M., Vinayagamoorthy, V., Brogni, A., Steed, A., Sasse, M.A.: The impact of avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived quality of communication in a shared immersive virtual environment. In: Proc. CHI 2003, pp. 529–536 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geller, D.M., Goodstein, L., Silver, M., Sternberg, W.C.: On being ignored: The effects of the violation of implicit rules of social interaction. Sociometry, 541–556 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goffman, E.: Footing. Semiotica 25(1–2), 1–30 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heylen, D., Van Es, I., Van Dijk, E., Nijholt, A., Van Dijk, B.: Experimenting with the gaze of a conversational agent. In: Proc. CLASS 2005, pp. 93–100 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heylen, D.K.J.: Head gestures, gaze and the principles of conversational structure. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 3(3), 241–267 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hollands, M.A., Ziavra, N.V., Bronstein, A.M.: A new paradigm to investigate the roles of head and eye movements in the coordination of whole-body movements. Experimental Brain Research 154(2), 261–266 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kendon, A.: Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kendon, A.: Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26, 22–63 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuzuoka, H., Suzuki, Y., Yamashita, J., Yamazaki, K.: Reconfiguring spatial formation arrangement by robot body orientation. In: Proc. HRI 2010, pp. 285–292 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, S.P., Badler, J.B., Badler, N.I.: Eyes alive. ACM ToG 21, 637–644 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCluskey, M.K., Cullen, K.E.: Eye, head, and body coordination during large gaze shifts in rhesus monkeys: Movement kinematics and the influence of posture. Journal of Neurophysiology 97(4), 2976–2991 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mutlu, B., Kanda, T., Forlizzi, J., Hodgins, J., Ishiguro, H.: Conversational gaze mechanisms for humanlike robots. ACM TiiS 1(2), 12:1–12:33 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pedica, C., Vilhjálmsson, H.H.: Spontaneous avatar behavior for human territoriality. Applied Artificial Intelligence 24(6), 575–593 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pedica, C., Högni Vilhjálmsson, H., Lárusdóttir, M.: Avatars in conversation: the importance of simulating territorial behavior. In: Allbeck, J., Badler, N., Bickmore, T., Pelachaud, C., Safonova, A. (eds.) IVA 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6356, pp. 336–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15892-6_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pejsa, T., Andrist, S., Gleicher, M., Mutlu, B.: Gaze and attention management for embodied conversational agents. ACM TiiS 5(1), 3:1–3:34 (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schegloff, E.A.: Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70(6), 1075–1095 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steptoe, W., Wolff, R., Murgia, A., Guimaraes, E., Rae, J., Sharkey, P., Roberts, D., Steed, A.: Eye-tracking for avatar eye-gaze and interactional analysis in immersive collaborative virtual environments. In: Proc. CSCW 2008, pp. 197–200 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uemura, T., Arai, Y., Shimazaki, C.: Eye-head coordination during lateral gaze in normal subjects. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 90(3–4), 191–198 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wieser, M.J., Pauli, P., Grosseibl, M., Molzow, I., Mühlberger, A.: Virtual social interactions in social anxiety-the impact of sex, gaze, and interpersonal distance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13(5), 547–554 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Williams, K.D., Cheung, C.K.T., Choi, W.: Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(5), 748 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yee, N., Bailenson, J.N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., Merget, D.: The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. CyberPsychology & Behavior 10(1), 115–121 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations