skip to main content
10.1145/587078.587085acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Explaining effects of eye gaze on mediated group conversations:: amount or synchronization?

Published:16 November 2002Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present an experiment examining effects of gaze on speech during three-person conversations. Understanding such effects is crucial for the design of teleconferencing systems and Collaborative Virtual Environments (CVEs). Previous findings suggest subjects take more turns when they experience more gaze. We evaluated whether this is because more gaze allowed them to better observe whether they were being addressed. We compared speaking behavior between two conditions: (1) in which subjects experienced gaze synchronized with conversational attention, and (2) in which subjects experienced random gaze. The amount of gaze experienced by subjects was a covariate. Results show subjects were 22% more likely to speak when gaze behavior was synchronized with conversational attention. However, covariance analysis showed these results were due to differences in amount of gaze rather than synchronization of gaze, with correlations of .62 between amount of gaze and amount of subject speech. Task performance was 46% higher when gaze was synchronized. We conclude it is commendable to use synchronized gaze models when designing CVEs, but depending on task situation, random models generating sufficient amounts of gaze may suffice.

References

  1. Argyle, M. and Cook, M. Gaze and Mutual Gaze. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyle, M. and Dean, J. Eye-contact, Distance and Affiliation. Sociometry 28(3), 1965, pp. 289--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Argyle, M. and Ingham, R. Gaze, Mutual Gaze and Proximity. Semiotica 6(1), 1972, pp. 32--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Bennet, G.K., Seashore, H.G., and Wesman, A.G. Manual for the Differential Aptitude Tests. New York: The Psych. Corporation, 1959.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., et al. Embodiment in Conversational Interfaces: Rea. In Proceedings of CHI'99. Pittsburgh, PA: ACM, 1999, pp. 520--527. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Colburn, A., Cohen, M.F., and Drucker, S.M. The Role of Eye Gaze in Avatar Mediated Conversational Interfaces. Report MSR-TR-2000-81. Microsoft Research, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Enheduanna. Nin-me-sàr-ra. Sumerian cuneiform tablets, Mesopotamia: +- 2500 B.C. Republished in Hallo, W.W. and van Dijk, J.J.A. (Ed.), The Exaltation of Inanna. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968, pp. 101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 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(1), 1963, pp. 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Garau, M., Slater, M., Bee, S., and Sasse, M.A. The Impact of Eye Gaze on Communication using Humanoid Avatars. In Proceedings of CHI'01. Seattle, WA: ACM, 2001, pp. 309--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kalma, A. Gazing in Triads: A Powerful Signal in Floor Apportionment. British Journal of Social Psychology 31(1), 1992, pp. 21--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kendon, A. Some Functions of Gaze-Direction in Social Interaction. Acta Psychologica 26(1), 1967, pp. 22--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Nielsen, G. Studies in Self Confrontation. Copenhagen: Monksgaard, 1962.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Rutter, D.R., Morley, I.E., and Graham, J.C. Visual Interaction in a Group of Introverts and Extraverts. European Journal on Social Psychology 2(4), 1972, pp. 371--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Vertegaal, R. The GAZE Groupware System: Mediating Joint Attention in Multiparty Communication and Collaboration. In Proceedings of CHI'99. Pittsburg, PA: ACM, 1999, pp. 294--301. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Vertegaal, R., Slagter, R., Van der Veer, G.C., and Nijholt, A. Why Conversational Agents Should Catch the Eye. In Extended Abstracts of CHI'00. The Hague, Netherlands: ACM, 2000, pp. 257--258. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Vertegaal, R., Slagter, R., Van der Veer, G.C., and Nijholt, A. Eye Gaze Patterns in Conversations: There is More to Conversational Agents Than Meets the Eyes. In Proceedings of CHI'01. Seattle, WA: ACM, 2001, pp. 301--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Vertegaal, R., Van der Veer, G.C., and Vons, H. Effects of Gaze on Multiparty Mediated Communication. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000. Montreal, Canada: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2000, pp. 95--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Explaining effects of eye gaze on mediated group conversations:: amount or synchronization?

                Recommendations

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in
                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Conferences
                  CSCW '02: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
                  November 2002
                  396 pages
                  ISBN:1581135602
                  DOI:10.1145/587078

                  Copyright © 2002 ACM

                  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: 16 November 2002

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • Article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  CSCW '02 Paper Acceptance Rate39of193submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

                  Upcoming Conference

                  CSCW '24

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader