Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Architecture for animation of affective behaviors in pedagogical agents

Abstract

This article introduces an open-source module responsible for the presentation of verbal (speech) and corporal (animation) behaviors of animated pedagogical agents. This module can be inserted into any learning environment regardless of application domain and platform, being executable under different operating systems. It was implemented in Java as a reactive agent (named Body agent) that communicates with the agent’s Mind through a language known as FIPA-ACL. Therefore, it may be inserted into any intelligent learning environment that is also capable to communicate using FIPA-ACL. Persistence of information is ensured by XML files, increasing the agent’s portability. The agent also includes a mechanism for automatically updating new behaviors and characters once available in the server. A simulation environment was conceived to test the proposed agent.

References

  1. 1. Lester J, Voerman JL, Towns SG and Callaway CB. Cosmo: a life-like animated pedagogical agent with deictic believability. In:Proceedings of IJCAI Workshop on Animated Pedagogical Agents: Making them Intelligent; 1997; Nagoya. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann; 1997. p. 61–69.

  2. 2. Paiva A and Machado I. Vincent, an autonomous pedagogical agent for on-the-job training. In:Proceedings of the 4 International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems; 1998; San Antonio, Texas, USA. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1998. p. 584–593.

  3. 3. Burleson W and Picard RW. Gender-specific approaches to developing emotionally intelligent learning companions.IEEE Intelligent Systems 2007; 22(4):62–69.

  4. 4. Reeves B and Nass CI.The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996.

  5. 5. Johnson WL, Shaw E and Ganeshan R. Pedagogical agents on the web. In:Proceedings of the ITS Workshop on Pedagogical Agents; 1998; San Antonio. p. 2–7.

  6. 6. Johnson WL, Shaw E, Marshall A and LaBore C. Evolution of user interaction: the case of agent adele. In:Proceedings of the 8 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces; 2003; Miami. New York: ACM; 2003. p. 93–100.

  7. 7. Rickel J and Johnson WL. Steve: a pedagogical agent for virtual reality. In:Proceedings of the 2 International Conference on Autonomous Agents; 1996; St. Paul, Minnepolis, USA. New York: ACM; 1996. p. 165–172.

  8. 8. Paiva A, Machado I and Martinho C. Enriching pedagogical agents with emotional behavior: the case of Vincent. In:Proceedings of the AIED Workshop on Animated and Personified Pedagogical Agents; 1999; Le Mans.

  9. 9. Reategui EB, Boff E, Ceron RF and Viccari RM. Um agente animado para ambientes de aprendizagem colaborativos.Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação 2006; 14(3):27–38.

  10. 10. Rickel J and Johnson L. Animated pedagogical agents for team training. In:Proceedings of the ITS Workshop on Pedagogical Agents; 1998; San Antonio. p. 75–77.

  11. 11. André E, Rist T and Muller J. Employing AI methods to control the behavior of animated interface agents.Applied Artificial Intelligence 1999; 13(4):415–448.

  12. 12. Faivre J, Nkambou R and Frasson C. Integrating adaptive emotional agents in ITS. In:Proceedings of the 6 International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems; 2002; Maceió, Brazil. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2002. p. 996–997.

  13. 13. Bica F, Verdin R and Vicari RM. Using the beliefs of self-efficacy to improve the effectiveness of ITS: an empirical study. In:Proceedings of Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence; 2006; Apizaco, Mexico. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2006. p. 248–258.

  14. 14. Lester J, Converse S, Kahler S, Barlow S, Stone B and Bhogal R. The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In:Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1997; Atlanta, Georgia. United States: ACM Press; 1997. p. 359–366.

  15. 15. Bercht M and Viccari RM. Pedagogical agents with affective and cognitive dimensions. In:Proceedings do Congreso Iberoamericnao de Informatica Educativa; 2000; Santiago. Santiago: Universidad de Chile; 2000.

  16. 16. Jaques PA.Using an animated pedagogical agent to interact affectivelly with the student. [PhD thesis]. Porto Alegre: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; 2004. p. 228.

  17. 17. Coles G.Reading lessons: the debate over Literacy. New York: Hill & Wang; 1998.

  18. 18. Horstmann C.Big Java. Porto Alegre: Bookman; 2004.

  19. 19. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents — FIPA.FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification. Geneva, Switzerland; 2002.

  20. 20. Johnson WL, Rickel J and Lester J. Animated pedagogical agents: face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 2000; 11(1):47–78.

  21. 21. Picard RW.Affective computing. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1997.

  22. 22. Picard RW, Vyzas E and Healey J. Toward machine emotional intelligence: analysis of affective physiological state.IEEE Transactions Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2001; 23(10):1175–1191.

  23. 23. Wehrle T and Kaiser S. Emotion and facial expression. In: Paiva A. (Ed.).Affective interactions: towards a new generation of computer interfaces. Berlin: Springer; 2000. p. 49–63. (v. 1814)

  24. 24. Martinho C, Machado I and Paiva A. A cognitive approach to affective user modeling. In: Paiva A. (Ed.).Affective interaction. London: Springer; 2000. p. 64–75. (v. LNCS/1814)

  25. 25. Izard CE. Emotion cognition relationship and human development. In: Izard CE, Kagan J and Zajonc RB. (Eds.).Emotions, cognition and behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984. p. 59–67.

  26. 26. Lester JC, Voerman J, Towns S and Callaway C. Deictic believability: coordinated gesture, locomotion and speech in lifelike pedagogical agents.Applied Artificial Intelligence 1999; 13(4–5):383–414.

  27. 27. Lester J and Towns S. Deicitic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In: Cassel J, Prevost S, Sullivan J and Churchill E. (Eds.).Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2000. p. 123–154.

  28. 28. Elliott C.Affective reasoner personality models for automated tutoring systems. In:Proceedings of the 5 Workshop Pedagogical Agents; 1997; Kobe, Japan. p. 33–39.

  29. 29. André E, Rist T and Müller JP. Life-like presentatin agent: a new perspective for computer-based technical documentation. In:Proceedings of the 5 Workshop Pedagogical Agents; 1997; Kobe, Japan. p. 1–8.

  30. 30. Abou-Jaoude S and Frasson C. Emotion computing in competitive learning environments. In:Proceedings of the 2 Workshop on Pedagogical Agents; 1998; San Antonio. p. 33–39.

  31. 31. Pelachaud C and Poggi I. Multimodal embodied agents.Knowledge Engineering Review 2002; 17(2):181–196.

  32. 32. Rehm M and André E. Catch me if you can: exploring lying agents in social settings. In:Proceedings of the 4 International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems; 2005; The Netherlands. New York: ACM; 2005. p. 937–944.

  33. 33. McQuiggan SW and Lester JC. Modeling and evaluating empathy in embodied companion agents.International Journal of Human Computer Studies 2007; 65(4): 348–360.

  34. 34. Jaques PA, Viccari RM, Pesty S and Bonneville JF. Applying Affective Tactics for a Better Learning. In:Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence; 2004; Valencia, Spain. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2004. p. 109–113.

  35. 35. Jaques PA, Lehmann M and Pesty S. Evaluating the affective tactics of an emotional pedagogical agent. In:Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing-Human Computer Interaction Track; 2009; Hawaii. New York: ACM; 2009. p. 104–109.

  36. 36. Jaques PA and Vicari RM. Infering emotions and applying affective tactics for a better learning. In: Vicari RM, Jaques PA and Verdin R. (Eds.).Agent-based tutoring systems by cognitive and affective modeling. New York: IGI Global; 2008. p. 135–155.

  37. 37. Brophy J.On motivating students. Michigan: Michigan State University; 1986.

  38. 38. Meece J and McColskey W.Improving Student motivation. Tallahassee, FL: Southeastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE), 2001. Disponível em: http://www.serve.org/publications/rdism.htm. Acesso em: Março 2002

  39. 39. Cameron J, Banko KM and Pierce WD. Pervasive negative effects on rewards on intrinsic motivation: the myth continues. The Behavior Analyst 2001; 24(1):1–44.

  40. 40. Bandura A. Self-efficacy. In: Ramachaudran R. (Ed.).Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. New York: Academic Press; 1994. p. 71–81.

  41. 41. Wilges B, Lucas JP and Silveira RA. Um agente pedagógico animado integrado a um ambiente de ensino a distância.Renote Revista Novas Tecnologias na Educação 2004; 2(1):121–128.

  42. 42. Bates J. The role of emotion in believable agents.Communication of ACM 1994; 37(7):122–125.

  43. 43. Chen P. The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data.ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1996; 1(1):9–36.

  44. 44. Ortony A, Clore G and Collins A.The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.

  45. 45. Scherer K. Appraisal theory. In: Dalgleish T and Power M. (Eds.).Handbook of cognition and emotion. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.

  46. 46. Gulz A and Haake M. Design of animated pedagogical agents: a look at their look.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2006; 64(4):322–339.

  47. 47. Axt M, Ferreira Filho RCM, Balle EE, Rodrigues SS and Muller DN. Cidades virtuais: tecnologias para aprendizagem e simulação. In:Anais do IV Seminário Jogos Eletrônicos, Educação e Comunicação; 2008; Salvador, Bahia. Salvador: UNEB; 2008. p. 1–10.

  48. 48. Baylor AL. Preliminary design guidelines for pedagogical agent interface image. In:Proceedings of the 10 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces; 2005; San Diego, California. New York: ACM; 2005; p. 249–250.

  49. 49. Baylor AL. Designing pedagogical agents to address diversity in learning. In:Proceedings of the 6 International Conference on Learning Sciences; 2004; Santa Monica, California. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004. p. 586–587.

  50. 50. Jaques PA, Jaques KSF and Lehmann M. Avaliando a efetividade de um agente pedagógico animado emocional. In:Anais do Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação; 2008; Fortaleza. Porto Alegre: SBC; 2008. CD-ROM.

  51. 51. Jaques PA. Avaliando um modelo afetivo de aluno baseado em uma abordagem cognitiva. In:Anais do Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação; 2008; Fortaleza. Porto Alegre: SBC; 2008. CD-ROM

  52. 52. Loyall AB and Bates J. Personality-rich believable agents that use language. In:Proceedings of the 1 International Conference on Autonomous Agents Marina del Rey; 1997; California. United States: ACM Press; 1997. p. 106–113.

  53. 53. Hayes-Roth B.Interacting with animated characters: puppets, bartenders and auto salespersons. Stanford: Knowledge Systems Laboratory; 1998. (Technical report)

Download references

Author information

Additional information

A previous version of this paper appeared at SBIE 2009 (XX Brazilian Symposium on Informatics in Education)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Motola, R., Jaques, P.A., Axt, M. et al. Architecture for animation of affective behaviors in pedagogical agents. J Braz Comp Soc 15, 3–13 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03194509

Download citation

Keywords

  • animated pedagogical agents
  • emotions
  • affective computing
  • lifelike agents.