Making Space for Interaction: Architects Design Dialogues

  • Claude P. R. Heath
  • Patrick G. T. Healey
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7206)


This exploratory research has taken a set of theoretical concepts as the basis for testing a visualisation of body-centric gesture space: 1). Kendon’s transactional segments, 2). the manubrium as a central anatomical marker for bodily movement, and 3). physical reach space. Using these, a 3D model of gesture space has been designed in order to be applied to empirical data from architects design meetings, articulating the role of gesture space overlaps within the interaction.

Multi-dimensional drawing techniques have resulted in detailed visualisations of these overlaps. Illustrations show that the dialogue contributions can be mapped to distinct locations in the changing shared spaces, creating a spatial framework for the analysis and visualisation of the multi-dimensional topology of the interaction. This paper discusses a Case Study where this type of modelling can be applied empirically, indexing speech and gesture to the drawing subspaces of a group of architects.


Gesture space interactional topologies spatial indexing spatial resources visuo-spatial deixis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Battersby, S.A.: Moving Together: The organisation of non-verbal cues during multiparty conversation. PhD Thesis, Queen Mary, London (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Battersby, S.A., Healey, P.G.T.: Inhabiting 3D Interaction Spaces, at Language Communication and Cognition, Brighton (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Healey, P.G.T., Peters, C.R.: The Conversational Organisation of Drawing. In: First International Workshop on Pen-Based Learning Technologies - Enabling Advanced Graphical, Multimodal and Mobile Learning Interactions (PLT 2007). IEEE, Italy (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Healey, P.G.T., Battersby, S.A.: The Interactional Geometry of a Three-way Conversation. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 785–790 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, H.H., Krych, M.A.: Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50(1), 62–81 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodwin, C.: The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In: Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 97–121. Irvington Publishers (1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heath, C., Luff, P.: Collaboration and control: crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground control room. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1, 69–94 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kendon, A.: Movement coordination in social interaction: Some examples described. Acta Psychologica 32, 100–125 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murphy, K.M.: Collaborative Imagining: the interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphical representation in architectural practice. Semiotica 2005, 113–145 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McNeill, D.: Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McNeill, D., Pedelty, L.L.: Right brain and gesture. Language, gesture, and space (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McNeill, D.: Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haviland, J.B.: Pointing, gesture spaces, and mental maps. In: McNeill, D. (ed.) Language and Gesture, p. 13. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haviland, J.B.: How to point in Zinacantan, in Pointing: Where language, cognition and culture meet. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klima, E.S., Bellugi, U.: From gesture to sign: deixis in a visual-gestural language. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. (1982)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pfeiffer, T.: Understanding Multimodal Deixis with Gaze and Gesture in Conversational Interfaces. PhD Thesis, Bielefeld University (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pfeiffer, T., Mattar, N.: Benefits of Locating Overt Visual Attention in Space Using Binocular Eye Tracking for Mixed Reality Applications. In: Virtual Reality Conference, VR 2008, Logos Berlin, pp. 1–3. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Streeck, J.: Gesturecraft: The manufacture of meaning. The University of Texas, Austin [Gesture Studies, 2] (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bressem, J., Ladewig, S.H.: Rethinking gesture phases: Articulatory features of gestural movement? Semiotic 184(1/4), 53–91 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ladewig, S.H.: Putting the cyclic gesture on a cognitive basis. Accessed 27-6-2011, at (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bressem, J.: Notating gestures: Proposal for a form based notation system of coverbal gestures (2008) (unpublished manuscript), (August 23, 2011)
  22. 22.
    Narasimhan, K.P.: Towards modelling spatial cognition for intelligent agents. In: ECCE 2011 Proceedings of the 29th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nguyen, N., Wachsmuth, I.: From Body Space to Interaction Space-Modeling Spatial Cooperation for Virtual Humans. In: Tumer, Yolum, Sonenberg, Stone (eds.) Proc. of 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, May 2-6, pp. 1047–1054. Nhung Nguyen and Ipke Wachsmuth (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berti, A., Frassinetti, F.: When far becomes near: remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12(3), 415–420 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holmes, N.P., Spence, C.: The body schema and the multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cognitive Processes 5(2), 94–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cortlett, E.N., Clark, T.S.: The Ergonomics of Workspaces and Machines: A Design Manual. CRC Press, Florida (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Efron, D.: Gesture, Race, and Culture. King’s Crown Press, New York (1941)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murphy, K.M.: Building Meaning in Interaction: Rethinking Gesture Classifications. Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture 5, 29–47 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fricke, E.: Origo, pointing, and conceptualization: what gestures reveal about the nature of the origo in face-to-face interaction. In: Lenz, F. (ed.) Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time, and Person (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kendon, A.: Gesture: Visible Actions as Utterance. Cambridge University Press (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goodwin, C.: Gesture, aphasia, and interaction. In: McNeill, D. (ed.) Language and Gesture, pp. 84–98. Cambridge University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goodwin, C., et al.: Pointing: where language, culture, and cognition meet, Mahwah, New Jersey (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murphy, K.M.: Building Meaning in Interaction: Rethinking Gesture Classifications. Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture 5, 29–47 (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gill, S.P.: Engagement Space: The Body in Parallel and Sequential Time and Space. Submitted to the website of, Gesture the Living Medium, Austin, Texas (undated)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ozyurek, A.: The influence of addressee location on spatial language and representational gestures of direction. In: Language and Gesture. Cambridge University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ozyurek, A.: Do Speakers Design Their Co-speech Gestures for Their Addressees? The Effects of Addressee Location on Representational Gestures. Journal of Memory and Language 46, 688–704 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Furuyama, N.: Gestural interaction between the instructor and the learner in origami instruction. In: McNeill, D. (ed.) Language and Gesture, pp. 99–117. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Furuyama, N.: The Semiotic Making of Speech and Gesture and How It Contributes to the Structuring of Discourse. Cognitive Studies 7(1), 71–77 (2000)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Furuyama, N.: Prolegomena of a theory of between-person coordination of speech and gesture. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 57, 347–374 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Latour, B.: Visualisation and Cognition: Drawing things together (1983), (retrieved July 30, 2010)
  41. 41.
    Heath C.P.R.: 3D Paper. In: Explorations in Spatiality: Spatiality in Design, University of Leeds, Department of Computing (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Willis, K.D.D., Lin, J., Mitani, J., Igarashi, T.: Spatial Sketch: Bridging Between Movement & Fabrication. In: TEI 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 24-27 (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Duncan, S.: Annotative Practice (Under Perpetual Revision) Due to Susan Duncan (Revision of D. McNeill, Gesture & Thought, Appendix) (2005)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Duncan, S.: Coding Manual: McNeill Lab coding methods, (accessed August 6, 2011)
  45. 45.
    Kendon, A.: Spatial organisation of social encounters: the F-formation system. In: Conducting Interaction; Patterns of Behaviour in Focussed Encounters, CUP (1990)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    McNeill, D.: Growth Points and Modeling, University of Chicago (powerpoint, undated, post 2005)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Healey, P.G.T., Heath, C.P.R.: Arranging Conversations in Space: Topologies for Interaction. IPrA, Birmingham (2011)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rodrigues, I.G.: Gesture Space and Gesture Choreography in European Portuguese and African Portuguese Interactions: A Pilot Study of Two Cases. In: Kopp, S., Wachsmuth, I. (eds.) GW 2009. LNCS, vol. 5934, pp. 23–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claude P. R. Heath
    • 1
  • Patrick G. T. Healey
    • 1
  1. 1.Interaction, Media, and Communication (IMC), School of Engineering and Computer ScienceQueen Mary, LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations