A Computational Model of Culture-Specific Conversational Behavior

  • Dušan Jan
  • David Herrera
  • Bilyana Martinovski
  • David Novick
  • David Traum
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4722)

Abstract

This paper presents a model for simulating cultural differences in the conversational behavior of virtual agents. The model provides parameters for differences in proxemics, gaze and overlap in turn taking. We present a review of literature on these factors and show results of a study where native speakers of North American English, Mexican Spanish and Arabic were asked to rate the realism of the simulations generated based on different cultural parameters with respect to their culture.

Keywords

Conversational agents proxemics gaze turn taking cultural model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    O’Neill-Brown, P.: Setting the stage for the culturally adaptive agent. In: Proceedings of the 1997 AAAI Fall Symposium on Socially Intelligent Agents, pp. 93–97. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Billinghurst, M., Campbell, L., Chang, K., Vilhjálmsson, H., Yan, H.: Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, pp. 520–527 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Rosis, F., Pelachaud, C., Poggi, I.: Transcultural believability in embodied agents: a matter of consistent adaptation. In: Agent Culture: Designing Human-Agent Interaction in a Multicultural World, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jan, D., Traum, D.R.: Dialog simulation for background characters. In: Panayiotopoulos, T., Gratch, J., Aylett, R., Ballin, D., Olivier, P., Rist, T. (eds.) IVA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3661, pp. 65–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Padilha, E., Carletta, J.: A simulation of small group discussion. In: Proceedings of EDILOG 2002: Sixth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, pp. 117–124 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel, J., Parker, R., Traum, D.R.: Simulation of small group discussions for middle level of detail crowds. In: Army Science Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Swartout, W., Hill, R., Gratch, J., Johnson, W., Kyriakakis, C., Labore, K., Lindheim, R., Marsella, S., Miraglia, D., Moore, B., Morie, J., Rickel, J., Thiebaux, M., Tuch, L., Whitney, R., Douglas, J.: Toward the holodeck: Integrating graphics, sound, character and story. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jan, D., Traum, D.R.: Dynamic movement and positioning of embodied agents in multiparty conversations. In: AAMAS 2007: Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hall, E.T.: Proxemics. Current Anthropology 9(2/3), 83–108 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baxter, J.C.: Interpersonal spacing in natural settings. Sociometry 33(4), 444–456 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watson, O.M., Graves, T.D.: Quantitative research in proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist 68(4), 971–985 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watson, O.: Proxemic Behavior: A Cross-cultural Study. Mouton (1970)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shuter, R.: Proxemics and Tactility in Latin America. Journal of Communication 26(3), 46–52 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCroskey, J.C., Young, T.J., Richmond, V.P.: A simulation methodology for proxemic research. Sign Language Studies 17, 357–368 (1977)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakanishi, H.: Freewalk: a social interaction platform for group behaviour in a virtual space. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 60(4), 421–454 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kendon, A.: Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychol (Amst) 26(1), 22–63 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Argyle, M., Cook, M.: Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1976)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Exline, R.V.: Explorations in the process of person perception: Visual interaction in relation to competition, sex, and need for affiliation. Journal of Personality 31 (1960)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Argyle, M., Ingham, R.: Gaze, mutual gaze, and proximity. Semiotica 6(1), 32–50 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weisbrod, R.M.: Looking behavior in a discussion group (1965) (unpublished paper)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matsumoto, D.: Culture and Nonverbal Behavior. In: The Sage Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G.: A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4), 696–735 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berry, A.: Spanish and American turn-taking styles: A comparative study. Pragmatics and Language Learning, monograph series 5, 180–190 (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ten Bosch, L., Oostdijk, N., de Ruiter, J.: Durational Aspects of Turn-Taking in Spontaneous Face-to-Face and Telephone Dialogues. In: Sojka, P., Kopeček, I., Pala, K. (eds.) TSD 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3206, pp. 563–570. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dušan Jan
    • 1
  • David Herrera
    • 2
  • Bilyana Martinovski
    • 1
  • David Novick
    • 2
  • David Traum
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Creative Technologies, Los Angeles, CA 
  2. 2.The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 

Personalised recommendations