iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33501259/
Engagement in Human-Agent Interaction: An Overview - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Aug 4:7:92.
doi: 10.3389/frobt.2020.00092. eCollection 2020.

Engagement in Human-Agent Interaction: An Overview

Affiliations
Review

Engagement in Human-Agent Interaction: An Overview

Catharine Oertel et al. Front Robot AI. .

Abstract

Engagement is a concept of the utmost importance in human-computer interaction, not only for informing the design and implementation of interfaces, but also for enabling more sophisticated interfaces capable of adapting to users. While the notion of engagement is actively being studied in a diverse set of domains, the term has been used to refer to a number of related, but different concepts. In fact it has been referred to across different disciplines under different names and with different connotations in mind. Therefore, it can be quite difficult to understand what the meaning of engagement is and how one study relates to another one accordingly. Engagement has been studied not only in human-human, but also in human-agent interactions i.e., interactions with physical robots and embodied virtual agents. In this overview article we focus on different factors involved in engagement studies, distinguishing especially between those studies that address task and social engagement, involve children and adults, are conducted in a lab or aimed for long term interaction. We also present models for detecting engagement and for generating multimodal behaviors to show engagement.

Keywords: engagement; engagement generation; engagement perception; human-agent interaction (HAI); human-robot interaction (HRI).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of virtual and physical agents in typical engagement scenarios with humans.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Examples of engagement detection systems.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The distribution of publications per year covered in this survey. A total of 169 publications were considered in total between the years 2001 and 2019.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Overview of number of mentions of specific (Left) robot types and (Right) virtual agent types used in studies. Note that some studies involved the use of multiple robot/agent types, while others did not use any robot or virtual agent, or did not specify the type involved.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Overview of all publications in this survey according to application type when it was specified (140 in total specified, 29 unspecified, or could not be identified).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Overview of all publications in this survey according to the role of the robot or virtual agent when it was specified (107 in total specified, 62 unspecified, or could not be identified).
Figure 7
Figure 7
The type of data collected in the evaluation studies conducted in the curated list of papers. Note that many studies collected multiple data types while some did not collect any.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ahmad M. I., Mubin O., Orlando J. (2017). Adaptive social robot for sustaining social engagement during long-term children-robot interaction. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 33, 943–962. 10.1080/10447318.2017.1300750 - DOI
    1. Alač M., Movellan J., Tanaka F. (2011). When a robot is social: spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in the practice of social robotics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 41, 893–926. 10.1177/0306312711420565 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alami R., Clodic A., Montreuil V., Sisbot E. A., Chatila R. (2005). Task planning for human-robot interaction, in Proceedings of the 2005 Joint Conference on Smart Objects and Ambient Intelligence: Innovative Context-Aware Services: Usages and Technologies (ACM: ), 81–85. 10.1145/1107548.1107574 - DOI
    1. Ambady N., Rosenthal R. (1993). Half a minute: predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 64, 431–441. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431 - DOI
    1. Anzalone S. M., Boucenna S., Ivaldi S., Chetouani M. (2015). Evaluating the engagement with social robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7, 465–478. 10.1007/s12369-015-0298-7 - DOI