skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Quantifying Collaboration with a Co-Creative Drawing Agent

Published: 04 December 2017 Publication History

Abstract

This article describes a new technique for quantifying creative collaboration and applies it to the user study evaluation of a co-creative drawing agent. We present a cognitive framework called creative sense-making that provides a new method to visualize and quantify the interaction dynamics of creative collaboration, for example, the rhythm of interaction, style of turn taking, and the manner in which participants are mutually making sense of a situation. The creative sense-making framework includes a qualitative coding technique, interaction coding software, an analysis method, and the cognitive theory behind these applications. This framework and analysis method are applied to empirical studies of the Drawing Apprentice collaborative sketching system to compare human collaboration with a co-creative AI agent vs. a Wizard of Oz setup. The analysis demonstrates how the proposed technique can be used to analyze interaction data using continuous functions (e.g., integrations and moving averages) to measure and evaluate how collaborations unfold through time.

References

[1]
Malika Auvrey, Charles Lenay, and John Stewart. 2009. Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas Psychol. 27, 1 (2009), 32–47.
[2]
Mark Batey and Adrian Furnham. 2006. Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 132, 4 (2006), 355--429.
[3]
Amy L. Baylor. 2009. Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: Role of visual presence and appearance. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 364, 1535 (2009), 3559--3565.
[4]
Stefan Benus. 2009. Variability and stability in collaborative dialogues: Turn-taking and filled pauses. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association.
[5]
Margaret A. Boden. 1990. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Weidenfeld 8 Nicolson, London.
[6]
Erin A. Carroll and Celine Latulipe. 2012. Triangulating the personal creative experience: Self-report, external judgments, and physiology. In Proceedings of Graphical Interface 2012. 53--60.
[7]
Erin A. Carroll, Celine Latulipe, Richard Fung, and Michael Terry. 2009. Creativity factor evaluation: Towards a standardized survey metric for creativity support. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 127--136.
[8]
Simon Colton. 2008. Creativity versus the perception of creativity in computational systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium: Creative Intelligent Systems. 14--20.
[9]
Simon Colton and Geraint A. Wiggins. 2012. Computational creativity: The final frontier? In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’12). 21--26.
[10]
Elena Clare Cuffari, Ezequiel Di Paolo, and Hanne De Jaegher. 2015. From participatory sense-making to language: There and back again. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 14, 4 (2015), 1089--1125.
[11]
Nicholas Davis, Margeaux Comerford, Mikhail Jacob, Chih-pin Hsiao, and Brian Magerko. 2015. An enactive characterization of pretend play. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 275--284.
[12]
Nicholas Davis, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, Pramod Gupta, and Shruti Gupta. 2011. Computing harmony with perlogicart: Perceptual logic inspired collaborative art. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 185--194.
[13]
Nicholas Davis, Chih-Pin Hsiao, Yanna Popova, and Brian Magerko. 2015. An enactive model of creativity for computational collaboration and co-creation. In Creativity in the Digital Age. Springer, 109--133.
[14]
Nicholas Davis, Chih-pin Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Lisa Li, and Brian Magerko. 2016. Empirically studying participatory sense-making in abstract drawing with a co-creative cognitive agent. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 196--207.
[15]
Hanne De Jaegher and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2007. Participatory sense-making. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 6, 4 (2007), 485--507.
[16]
Hanne De Jaegher and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2008. Making sense in participation: An enactive approach to social cognition. Emerging Communications 10 (2008), 33--47.
[17]
Hanne de Jaegher, Ezequiel Di Paolo, and Shaun Gallagher. 2010. Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 10 (2010), 441--447.
[18]
Ezequiel A. Di Paolo, Marieke Rohde, and Hiroyuki Iizuka. 2008. Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing. New Ideas Psychol. 26, 2 (2008), 278--294.
[19]
Ernest A. Edmonds and Linda Candy. 2005. Computer support for creativity. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 63, 4--5 (2005), 363--364.
[20]
Valentina Fantasia, Hanne De Jaegher, and Alessandra Fasulo. 2014. We can work it out: an enactive look at cooperation. Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014), 874.
[21]
Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol. Bull. 76, 5 (1971), 378.
[22]
Karl Friston. 2009. The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 7 (2009), 293--301.
[23]
Karl Friston. 2010. The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 2 (2010), 127--138.
[24]
Karl Friston, James Kilner, and Lee Harrisons. 2006. A free energy principle for the brain. J. Physiol Paris 100, 1 (2006), 70--87.
[25]
Tom Froese, Hiroyuki Iizuka, and Takashi Ikegami. 2014. Embodied social interaction constitutes social cognition in pairs of humans: A minimalist virtual reality experiment. Scientific Reports 4 (2014), 3672.
[26]
Tom Froese, Marek Mcgann, William Bigge, Adam Spiers, and Anil K. Seth. 2012. The enactive torch: A new tool for the science of perception. IEEE Trans. Hapt. 5, 4 (2012), 365--375.
[27]
Tom Froese and Tom Ziemke. 2009. Enactive artificial intelligence: Investigating the systemic organization of life and mind. Artif. Intell. 173, 3 (2009), 466--500.
[28]
Thomas Fuchs and Hanne de Jaegher. 2009. Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 8, 4 (2009), 465--486.
[29]
Arthur M. Glenberg. 1997. What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action. Behav. Brain Sci. 20, 1 (1997), 41--50.
[30]
Agneta Gulz and Magnus Haake. 2006. Design of animated pedagogical agents—A look at their look. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64, 4 (2006), 322--339.
[31]
Andruid Kerne, Steven M. Smith, Eunyee Koh, Hyun Choi, and Ross Graeber. 2008. An experimental method for measuring the emergence of new ideas in information discovery. Intl. J. Hum.--Comput. Interact. 24, 5 (2008), 460--477.
[32]
M. Kim and Mary Lou Maher. 2005. Comparison of designers using a tangible user interface and graphical user interface and impact on spatial cognition. In Proceedings of Human Behavior in Design 5 (2005), 81--94.
[33]
Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff. 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.
[34]
Todd Lubart. 2005. How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and commentary on the special issue. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 63, 4--5 (2005), 365--369.
[35]
Mary Lou Maher and Douglas H. Fisher. 2012. Using AI to evaluate creative designs. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity, Volume 1.
[36]
Olivier Oullier and Frederic Basso. 2010. Embodied economics: How bodily information shapes the social coordination dynamics of decision-making. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 365, 1538 (2010), 291--301.
[37]
David Philipona, J. Kevin O’regan, and J.-P. Nadal. 2003. Is there something out there? Inferring space from sensorimotor dependencies. Neur. Comput. 15, 9 (2003), 2029--2049.
[38]
Yanna B. Popova. 2014. Narrativity and enaction: The social nature of literary narrative understanding. Front. Psychol. 5 (2014), 895.
[39]
Zuzanna Rucinska and Ellen Reijmers. 2015. Enactive account of pretend play and its application to therapy. Front. Psychol. 6 (2015), 175.
[40]
Giulio Sandini, Giorgio Metta, and David Vernon. 2004. Robotcub: An open framework for research in embodied cognition. In Proceedings of the 2004 4th IEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots. 13--32.
[41]
R. Keith Sawyer and Stacy Dezutter. 2009. Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychol. Aesthet. Creativ. Arts 3, 2 (2009), 81.
[42]
Ben Shneiderman. 2007. Accelerating discovery and innovation. Commun. ACM 12 (2007), 20--32.
[43]
Philipp Schwartenbeck, Thomas Fitzgerald, Ray Dolan, and Karl Friston. 2013. Exploration, novelty, surprise, and free energy minimization. Front. Psychol. 4 (2013), 710.
[44]
Ben Shneiderman, Gerhard Fischer, Mary Czerwinski, Mitch Resnick, Brad Myers, Linda Candy, Ernest Edmonds, Mike Eisenberg, Elisa Giaccardi, Tom Hewett, Pamela Jennings, Bill Kules, Kumiyo Nakakoji, Jay Nunamaker, Randy Pausch, Ted Selker, Elisabeth Sylcan, and Michael Terry. 2006. Creativity support tools: Report from a U.S. national science foundation sponsored workshop. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 20, 2 (2006), 61--77.
[45]
Pierre Steiner and John Stewart. 2009. From autonomy to heteronomy (and back): The enaction of social life. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 8, 4 (2009), 527--550.
[46]
John Robert Stewart, Olivier Gapenne, and Ezequiel A. Di Paolo. 2010. Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science. MIT Press.
[47]
David Vernon. 2010. Enaction as a conceptual framework for developmental cognitive robotics. J. Behav. Robot. 1, 2 (2010), 89--98.
[48]
David Vernon. 2014. Artificial Cognitive Systems: A Primer. MIT Press.
[49]
Matthias Voigt, Bjorn Niehaves, and Jorg Becker. 2012. Towards a unified design theory for creativity support systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems: Advances in Theory and Practice. 152--173.
[50]
Geraint A. Wiggins. 2006. Searching for computational creativity. New Gener. Comput. 24, 3 (2006), 209--222.
[51]
Geraint A. Wiggins. 2006. A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 19, 7 (2006), 449--458.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Form innovation: investigating the use of generative design tools to encourage creativity in product designInternational Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation10.1080/21650349.2024.233697212:3(163-182)Online publication date: Apr-2024
  • (2023)Collaborative Creativity in TikTok Music DuetsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581380(1-16)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
  • (2023)A State-of-Art Review on Intelligent Systems for Drawing AssistingHuman Interface and the Management of Information10.1007/978-3-031-35132-7_44(583-605)Online publication date: 23-Jul-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems  Volume 7, Issue 4
Special Issue on IUI 2016 Highlights
December 2017
134 pages
ISSN:2160-6455
EISSN:2160-6463
DOI:10.1145/3166060
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 December 2017
Accepted: 01 August 2017
Revised: 01 July 2017
Received: 01 July 2016
Published in TIIS Volume 7, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Creativity
  2. collaboration
  3. creative agents
  4. drawing
  5. evaluation methods
  6. interaction dynamics
  7. qualitative coding

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)160
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)24
Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Form innovation: investigating the use of generative design tools to encourage creativity in product designInternational Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation10.1080/21650349.2024.233697212:3(163-182)Online publication date: Apr-2024
  • (2023)Collaborative Creativity in TikTok Music DuetsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581380(1-16)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
  • (2023)A State-of-Art Review on Intelligent Systems for Drawing AssistingHuman Interface and the Management of Information10.1007/978-3-031-35132-7_44(583-605)Online publication date: 23-Jul-2023
  • (2022)SketchMaker: Sketch Extraction and Reuse for Interactive Scene Sketch CompositionACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems10.1145/354395612:3(1-26)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2022
  • (2022)Perspectives on design creativity and innovation research: 10 years laterInternational Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation10.1080/21650349.2022.202148010:1(1-30)Online publication date: 19-Jan-2022
  • (2021)Tool or Partner: The Designer’s Perception of an AI-Style Generating ServiceArtificial Intelligence in HCI10.1007/978-3-030-77772-2_16(241-259)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2021
  • (2018)Supporting semi-automatic marble thin-section image segmentation with machine learning2018 IEEE Conference on Evolving and Adaptive Intelligent Systems (EAIS)10.1109/EAIS.2018.8397181(1-8)Online publication date: May-2018

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Full Access

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media