ABSTRACT
An increasing number of our technological interactions are mediated through virtually embodied characters and software agents powered by machine learning. To understand how users relate to and evaluate these types of interfaces, we designed a Wizard of Oz prototype of an embodied agent in Minecraft that learns from users' actions, and conducted a user study with 18 school-aged Minecraft players. We categorised nine main ways users spontaneously attempted to interact with and teach the agent: four using game controls, and five using natural language text input. This study lays groundwork for a better understanding of human interaction with learning agents in virtual worlds.
- Saleema Amershi, Maya Cakmak, W Bradley Knox, and Todd Kulesza. 2014. Power to the People: The Role of Humans in Interactive Machine Learning. AI Magazine 35, 4.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jasmin Bernotat, Birte Schiffhauer, Friederike Eyssel, et al. 2016. Welcome to the Future -- How Naïve Users Intuitively Address an Intelligent Robotics Apartment. In A. Agah, J.-J. Cabibihan, A.M. Howard, M.A. Salichs, and H. He, eds., Social Robotics: 8th International Conference, ICSR 2016, Kansas City, MO, USA, November 1--3, 2016 Proceedings. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 982--992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roland Buchner, Daniela Wurhofer, Astrid Weiss, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2013. Robots in Time: How User Experience in Human-Robot Interaction Changes over Time. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Social Robotics, Springer, 138--147. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kerstin Fischer, Katrin S Lohan, Chrystopher Nehaniv, and Hagen Lehmann. 2013. Effects of Different Kinds of Robot Feedback. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Social Robotics, Springer, 260--269. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Susanne Frennert, Håkan Eftring, and Britt Östlund. 2013. What Older People Expect of Robots: A Mixed Methods Approach. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Social Robotics, Springer, 19--29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- James Paul Gee and Judith L. Green. 1998. Discourse Analysis, Learning, and Social Practice: A Methodological Study. Review of Research in Education 23: 119--169. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael A. Goodrich and Alan C. Schultz. 2008. Human--Robot Interaction: A Survey. Foundations and Trends® in Human--Computer Interaction 1, 3: 203--275.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristina Höök. 2000. Steps to Take Before Intelligent User Interfaces Become Real. Interacting with Computers 12, 4: 409--426. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew Johnson, Katja Hofmann, Tim Hutton, and David Bignell. 2016. The Malmo Platform for Artificial Intelligence Experimentation. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-16), 4246--4247.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tasneem Kaochar, Raquel Torres Peralta, Clayton T. Morrison, Ian R. Fasel, Thomas J. Walsh, and Paul R. Cohen. 2011. Towards Understanding How Humans Teach Robots. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on User Modeling, Adaption, and Personalization, Springer-Verlag, 347--352. Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Bradley Knox, Brian D. Glass, Bradley C. Love, W. Todd Maddox, and Peter Stone. 2012. How Humans Teach Agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 4, 4: 409--421. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nathan Koenig, Leila Takayama, and Maja Matarić. 2010. Communication and Knowledge Sharing in Human--Robot Interaction and Learning from Demonstration. Neural Networks 23, 8--9: 1104-- 1112.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pattie Maes. 1994. Agents That Reduce Work and Information Overload. Communications of the ACM 37, 30--40. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Maulsby, Saul Greenberg, and Richard Mander. 1993. Prototyping an Intelligent Agent through Wizard of Oz. Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 277--284. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Donald A. Norman. 1994. How Might People Interact with Agents. Communications of the ACM 37, 7: 68--71. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laurel Riek. 2012. Wizard of Oz Studies in HRI: A Systematic Review and New Reporting Guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 1, 1: 119-- 136. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ben Shneiderman. 1982. The Future of Interactive Systems and the Emergence of Direct Manipulation. Behaviour & Information Technology 1, 3: 237--256. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gerry Stahl. 2013. Theories of Cognition in Collaborative Learning. In C.E. Hmelo-Silver, ed., The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning. Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 74--90.Google Scholar
- Yong Xu, Yoshimasa Ohmoto, Kazuhiro Ueda, et al. 2011. Active Adaptation in Human-Agent Collaborative Interaction. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 37, 1: 23--38. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Spontaneous Interactions with a Virtually Embodied Intelligent Assistant in Minecraft
Recommendations
Enabling Embodied Conversational Agents to Respond to Nonverbal Behavior of the Communication Partner
Human-Computer Interaction. User Experience and BehaviorAbstractHumans communicate on three levels: words, paralanguage, and nonverbal. While conversational agents focus mainly on the interpretation of words that are being spoken, recently the focus has also shifted to how we say those words with our tone, ...
Modeling situation-dependent nonverbal expressions for a pair of embodied agent in a dialogue based on conversations in TV programs
HCI'13: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Human-Computer Interaction: interaction modalities and techniques - Volume Part IVMathematical model for controlling nonverbal expressions of a pair of embodied agents designed for presenting various information through their dialogue is discussed. Nonverbal expressions of a human during conversation with others depend on those of ...
Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human-robot interaction
Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of physical embodiment in human-agent interaction. Experiment 1 (N=32) shows positive effects of physical embodiment on the feeling of an agent's social presence, the evaluation of the agent, the ...
Comments