Effects of Embodied Interface Agents and Their Gestural Activity

  • Nicole C. Krämer
  • Bernd Tietz
  • Gary Bente
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2792)


A study is presented that addresses the question if embodied interface agents – compared to text and speech output – increase acceptance and effectiveness of a TV/VCR system and if their gestural activity modulates the effects. 106 participants were confronted with a VCR system equipped with either text output, speech output or an embodied interface agent showing normal gestures, no gestures or gestures that had been slightly dissynchronized from speech. Results show that participants experienced themselves as most entertained when confronted with an embodied agent, but that ratings of helpfulness were lower compared to audio and text version. Only few differences between the gesture conditions were obtained hinting to less gesture being evaluated slightly more positive. Implications for the future design of the agents’ nonverbal behavior are discussed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dehn, D.M., van Mulken, S.: The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52, 1–22 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krämer, N.C., Bente, G.: Virtuelle Helfer: Embodied Conversational Agents in der Mensch-Computer-Interaktion. In: Bente, G., Krämer, N. C., Petersen, A. (eds.) Virtuelle Realitäten, Göttingen, Hogrefe, pp. 203-225 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Mulken, S., André, E., Müller, J.: The persona effect: how substantial is it? In: Johnson, H., Nigay, L., Roast, C. (eds.) People and Computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI 1998, pp. 53–66. Springer, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rickenberg, R., Reeves, B.: The effects of animated characters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of user interfaces. In: Letters of CHI 2000, pp. 49-56 (April 2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bente, G., Krämer, N.C., Trogemann, G., Piesk, J., Fischer, O.: Conversing with electronic devices. An integrated approach towards the generation and evaluation of nonverbal behavior in face-to-face like interface agents. In: Heuer, A., Kirste, T. (eds.) Intelligent interactive assistance and mobile multimedia computing. Proceedings of the IMC 2000, Rostock, Neuer Hochschulschriftenverlag, pp. 67–76 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slater, M., Steed, A.: Meeting people virtually: Experiments in shared virtual environments. In: Schroeder, R. (ed.) The social life of avatars, pp. 146–171. Springer, London (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krämer, N.C.: Bewegende Bewegung. Sozio-emotionale Wirkungen nonverbalen Verhaltens und deren experimentelle Untersuchung mittels Computeranimation. Lengerich, Pabst (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garau, M., Slater, M., Bee, S., Sasse, M.A.: The impact of eye gaze on communication using humanoid avatars. In: Proceedings of the SIG-CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WA, pp. 309-316 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cassell, J., Thórisson, K.: The power of a nod and a glance: Envelope vs. emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 13(3), 519–538 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cassell, J., Steedman, M., Badler, N., Pelachaud, C., Stone, M., Douville, B., Prevost, S., Achorn, B.: Modeling the interaction between speech and gesture. In: Ram, A., Eiselt, K. (eds.): Proceedings on the sixteenth annual conference of the cognitive science. LEA, pp. 153-158 (1994), Available http://gn.www.media.mit.edu/groups/gn/publications.html
  11. 11.
    Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V.: Handbewegungen. In: Scherer, K. R., Wallbott, H. G. (eds.): Nonverbale Kommunikation. Weinheim, Beltz, pp. 108-123 (1979)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Ruiter, J. P.: Gesture and Speech Production. MPI Series in Psycholinguistics, Wageningen, Ponson & Looijen (1998) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duncan Jr., S.: Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23(2), 283–292 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjálmsson, H., Yan, H.: Human conversation as a system framework: Designing embodied conversational agents. In: Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E. (eds.) Embodied conversational agents, pp. 29–63. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grammer, K., Filova, V., Fieder, M.: The communication paradox and a possible solution: Toward a radical empiricism. In: Schmitt, A., Atzwanger, K., Grammer, K., Schäfer, K. (eds.) New aspects of human ethology, pp. 91–120. Plenum, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole C. Krämer
    • 1
  • Bernd Tietz
    • 1
  • Gary Bente
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CologneKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations