Yoshimasa Ohmoto
ABSTRACT
In this study, we attempted to improve the engagement in tasks involving interactions with an agent by making the agent aware of the temporal continuity of information shared through interactions between the user and agent. We conducted an experiment to test the effectiveness of the agent behavior model using a game task. During the experiment, we investigated the degree of engagement of the participants with the task, the workload of the task during the game, the mental load of the task, and the sense of immersion in the task. As a result, it was found that the amount of work in the task and the degree of engagement with the task of the participant could be improved, as could the influence of the agent’s action. These results suggest that demonstrating the retention of time-continuous user information in human-agent interactions is effective in improving the engagement with a task.
- James E Allen, Curry I Guinn, and Eric Horvtz. 1999. Mixed-initiative interaction. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications 14, 5(1999), 14–23.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- David J Atkinson, William J Clancey, and Micah H Clark. 2014. Shared awareness, autonomy and trust in human-robot teamwork. In 2014 AAAI fall symposium series.Google Scholar
- William E Cheetham and Kai Goebel. 2007. Appliance call center: A successful mixed-initiative case study. AI Magazine 28, 2 (2007), 89–89.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel Clement Dennett. 1989. The intentional stance. MIT press.Google Scholar
- Mario Gianni, Panagiotis Papadakis, Fiora Pirri, and Matia Pizzoli. 2011. Awareness in mixed initiative planning. In 2011 AAAI Fall Symposium Series.Google Scholar
- Shigeru HAGA and Naoki MIZUKAMI. 1996. Japanese version of NASA Task Load Index: Sensitivity of its workload score to difficulty of three different laboratory tasks. Japanese Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics 32, 2(1996), 71–79.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183.Google Scholar
- Nicholas R Jennings, Luc Moreau, David Nicholson, Sarvapali Ramchurn, Stephen Roberts, Tom Rodden, and Alex Rogers. 2014. Human-agent collectives. Commun. ACM 57, 12 (2014), 80–88.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sara Kiesler. 2005. Fostering common ground in human-robot interaction. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005. IEEE, 729–734.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nobuyoshi Matsumoto, Hiroyuki Fujii, Miki Goan, and Michio Okada. 2005. Minimal design strategy for embodied communication agents. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005. IEEE, 335–340.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Javier R Movellan, Fumihide Tanaka, Ian R Fasel, Cynthia Taylor, Paul Ruvolo, and Micah Eckhardt. 2007. The RUBI project: a progress report. In 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 333–339.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yoshimasa Ohmoto, Suyama Takashi, and Toyoaki Nishida. 2016. Effect on the mental stance of an agent’s encouraging behavior in a virtual exercise game. In Cognitive 2016: The eighth international conference on advanced cognitive technologies and applications. 10–15.Google Scholar
- Hidekazu OSANAI and Takashi KUSUMI. 2013. Immersion in the narrative world: A review of conception and function in the reading process. Japanese Psychological Review 56, 4 (2013), 457–473.Google Scholar
- Marie-Pierre Pacaux-Lemoine, Damien Trentesaux, Gabriel Zambrano Rey, and Patrick Millot. 2017. Designing intelligent manufacturing systems through Human-Machine Cooperation principles: A human-centered approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering 111 (2017), 581–595.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ben Shneiderman and Pattie Maes. 1997. Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. interactions 4, 6 (1997), 42–61.Google Scholar
- Arlette van Wissen, Ya’akov Gal, BA Kamphorst, and MV Dignum. 2012. Human–agent teamwork in dynamic environments. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 1 (2012), 23–33.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Improving Engagement in Virtual Experiences Based on the Retention of Temporal-Continuous User’s Information
Recommendations
Inducing and maintaining the intentional stance by showing interactions between multiple agents
IVA '18: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual AgentsIn human-computer interaction, it is first necessary for the human to recognize that there is a meaning beyond information provision while interacting with an agent. One of the critical barriers to social human-computer interaction is the mental state ...
How does Interest in a Work Task Impact Search Behavior and Engagement?
CHIIR '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Conference on Human Information Interaction and RetrievalOne goal of using simulated work tasks in interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments is to create a more relevant and interesting search experience for study participants. However, there is not much guidance about how to identify interesting ...
The Effects of Interrupting Behavior on Interpersonal Attitude and Engagement in Dyadic Interactions
AAMAS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent SystemsInterruptions frequently occur in dyadic human interaction. In addition to serve as turn-taking mechanism, they may lead to different perceptions of both the interruptee and interrupter's interpersonal attitude, engagement and involvement. We present an ...
Comments