Advertisement

A Comprehensive Context Model for Multi-party Interactions with Virtual Characters

  • Norbert Pfleger
  • Markus Löckelt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4133)

Abstract

Contextual information plays a crucial role in nearly every conversational setting. When people engage in conversations they rely on what has previously been uttered or done in various ways. Some nonverbal actions are ambiguous when viewed on their own. However, when viewed in their context of use their meaning is obvious. Autonomous virtual characters that perceive and react to events in conversations just like humans do also need a comprehensive representation of this contextual information. In this paper we describe the design and implementation of a comprehensive context model for virtual characters.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Bunt, 2000]
    Bunt, H.: Dialogue pragmatics and context specification. In: Bunt, H., Black, W. (eds.) Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue. Natural Language Processing, vol. 1, pp. 81–150. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  2. [Carpenter, 1992]
    Carpenter, B.: The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [Cassell et al., 1999]
    Cassell, J., Torres, O., Prevost, S.: Turn Taking vs. Discourse Structure: How Best to Model Multimodal Conversation. In: Wilks, Y. (ed.) Machine Conversations, pp. 143–154. Kluwer, The Hague (1999)Google Scholar
  4. [Clark, 1996]
    Clark, H.H.: Using language. The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  5. [Clark and Brennan, 1991]
    Clark, H.H., Brennan, S.E.: Grounding in Communication. In: Resnick, L.B., Levine, J., Teasley, S.D. (eds.) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association (1991)Google Scholar
  6. [Kipp, 2001]
    Kipp, M.: Anvil - A Generic Annotation Tool for Multimodal Dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech), Aalborg, pp. 1367–1370 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. [Knapp and Hall, 2002]
    Knapp, M.L., Hall, J.A.: Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. Wadsworth Publishing - ITP (2002)Google Scholar
  8. [Levinson, 2003]
    Levinson, S.C.: Space in Language and Cognition. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  9. [Löckelt, 2005]
    Löckelt, M.: Action Planning for Virtual Human Performances. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Storytelling, Strasbourg, France (2005)Google Scholar
  10. [LuperFoy, 1991]
    LuperFoy, S.: Discourse Pegs: A Computational Analysis of Context-Dependent Referring Expressions. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin (1991)Google Scholar
  11. [Pfleger, 2004]
    Pfleger, N.: Context Based Multimodal Fusion. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2004), State College, PA, pp. 265–272 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. [Pfleger et al., 2003]
    Pfleger, N., Engel, R., Alexandersson, J.: Robust Multimodal Discourse. In: Proceedings of Diabruck: 7th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Wallerfangen, Germany, pp. 107–114 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. [Yngve, 1970]
    Yngve, V.H.: On getting a word in edgewise. In: Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, pp. 567–577. Chicago Linguistics Society (1970)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Pfleger
    • 1
  • Markus Löckelt
    • 1
  1. 1.DFKI GmbHSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations