Abstract
In a collaborative work situation at a distance, the use of avatars to represent collaborators reduces collaborative effort. Also, animated avatars can help distant users to ground their relationship and facilitate their interaction because they materialise visual clues for the distant collaborators and their current activity. To check the validity of these hypotheses we set up an experiment based on the use of a collaborative virtual environment (CVE) synchronised for collective medical decision-making. Several teams of practitioners from different disciplines will be required to deal with liver tumours displayed in Argonaute 3D. In this paper, we provide some evidence from existing studies for the hypotheses and select several measures to estimate the grounding process in CVEs. Next, we briefly describe the setup used to collect observable data with Argonaute 3D and we summarise first observations acquired with practitioners.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
http://www.there.com/index.html
http://www.francetelecom.com/fr/espaces/journalistes/dossiers/DP_old/att00004822/dp_021105.pdf
http://www.rd.francetelecom.fr/fr/galerie/navig_argonaute3D.htm
References
Bangerter A (2004) Using pointing and describing to achieve joint focus of attention in dialogue. Psychol Sci 15(6):415–419
Bangerter A, Clark HH (2003) Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognit Sci 27:195–225
Baron-Cohen S (1995) The eye direction detector (EDD) and the shared attention mechanism (SAM): two cases for evolutionary psychology. In: Moore C, Dunham PJ (eds) Joint attention: its origins and role in development. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 41–60
Benford SD, Bowers JM, Fahlén LE, Greenhalgh CM, Snowdon DN (1995) User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments. In: Proceedings. 1995 ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’95), Denver, Colorado, USA, ACM Press
Beun RJ, Cremers AHM (1998) Object reference in a shared domain of conversation. Pragmat Cogn 6:121–152
Biocca F (1997) The cyborg’s dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environments. J Comput Mediated Commun [On-line], 3 (2). Retrieved August 27, 2004 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/biocca2.html
Brennan SE (1998) The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In: Fussel SR, Kreuz RJ (eds) Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 201–225
Brennan SE (2000) Processes that shape conversation and their implications for computational linguistics. In: Proceedings 38th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. ACL, Hong Kong
Brennan SE, Ohaeri JO (1999) Why do electronic conversations seem less polite? The costs and benefits of hedging. In: Proceedings international joint conference on work activities, coordination, and collaboration (WACC’99), San Francisco
Carroll JM, Neale DC, Isenhour PL, Rosson MB, McCrickard DS (2003) Notification and awareness: synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58:605–632
Clark HH (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley S (eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. APA Books, Washington, pp 127–149
Clark HH, Marshall CR (1981) Definitive reference and mutual knowledge. In: Joshi AK, Webber BL, Sag IA (eds) Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp 10–63
Clark HH, Schaefer EF (1987) Collaborating on contributions to conversation. Language and cognitive processes, 2, 19–41. Reprinted In: Dietrich R, Graumann CF (eds) Language processing in a social context. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1989
Clark HH, Schaefer EF (1989) Contributing to discourse. Cognit Sci 13:259–294
Falzon P (1994) Dialogues fonctionnels et activité collective. Trav Hum 57:299–312
France E, Anderson AH, Gardner M (2001) The impact of status and audio-conferencing technology on business meetings. Int J Hum Comput Stud 54:857–876
Garau M, Slater M, Pertaub DP, Razzaque S (2005) The responses of people to virtual humans in an immersive virtual environment. Presence: Teleop Virt Environ 14(1):104–116
Gerhard M, Moore D, Hobbs D (2004) Embodiment and presence in collaborative interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Stud 61(4):453–480
Guye-Villème A, Capin TK, Pandzic IS, Thalmann NM, Thalmann D (1999) Nonverbal communication interface for collaborative virtual environments. Virtual Reality J 4:49–59
Hancock JT, Dunham PJ (2001) Language use in computer-mediated communication: the role of coordination devices. Discourse Process 31:91–110
Harré R, Van Langehove L (1991) Varieties of positioning. J Theory Soc Behav 21:393–408
Hermans HJM (1996) Voicing the self: from information processing to dialogical interchange. Psychol Bull 119(1):31–50
Hoc J-M (1990) Les activités de diagnostic. In: Richard J-F, Bonnet C, Ghiglione R (eds) Traité de Psychologie cognitive (tome 2). Dunod, Paris, pp 158–165
Kraut RE, Fussell SR, Siegel J (2003) Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Hum Comput Interact 18:13–49
Leplat J (2001) La gestion des communications par le contexte. Pistes [On-line], 3 (1). Retrieved August 27, 2004 from http://www.pistes.uqam.ca/v3n1/articles/v3n1a2.htm
Mynatt ED, Adler A, Ito M, O’Dey VL (1997) Design for network communities. In: Proceedings, ACM SIGGHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘97). ACM, Atlanta
Nass C, Moon Y, Fogg BJ, Reeves B, Dryer C (1995) Can computers be human personalities? Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(2):223–239
Nass C, Lee K (2001) Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. J Exp Psychol Appl 7(3):171–181
Navarro C (2001) Partage de l’information en situation de coopération à distance et nouvelles technologies: Bilan des recherches récentes. Trav Hum 64(4):297–319
Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Hum Comput Interact 15:139–178
Ousland AR (1999) Comparison of multimedia conferencing in 2D and 3D environments. EURESCOM Project P807, JUPITER II. Retrieved August 27, 2004 from http://www.eurescom.de/~public-webspace/P800-series/P807/index.html
Querrec R (2002) Les systêmes multi-agents pour les environnements virtuels de formation: application à la sécurité civile. Thèse de doctorat de l’Université de Bretagne Occidentale
Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Riva G, Galimberti C (1998) Computer-mediated communication: identity and social interaction in an electronic environment. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 124:434–464
Rogalski J (1994) Formation aux activités collectives. Trav Hum 57:367–386
Schmidt K (1994) Cooperative work and its articulation: requirements for computer support. Trav Hum 57:345–366
Sherman RC (2001) The mind’s eye in cyberspace: online perceptions of self and others. In: Riva G, Galimberti C (eds) Towards cyberspsychology: mind, cognition, and society in the Internet age. IOS Press, Washington DC
Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunication. Wiley, New York
Sproull L, Kiesler S (1986) Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Manage Sci 32:1492–1512
Talamo A, Ligorio B (2001) Strategic identities in cyberspace. Cyberpsych Behav 4(1):109–122
Tapie J (2004) La prise de décision collective dans les environnements virtuels collaboratifs. Etude de cas en réalité virtuelle partagée. Université Toulouse II, Décembre
Terssac de G, Chabaud C (1990) Référentiel opératif commun et fiabilité. In: Leplat J, de Terssac G (eds) Les facteurs humains de la fiabilité dans les systèmes complexes. Toulouse, Octarès pp 111–139
Thie S, van Wijk J (1998) A general theory on presence: experimental evaluation of social virtual presence in a decision making task. In: Presence in shared virtual environment workshop, June 10–11, University College London, UK. Retrieved August 27, 2004 from http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/m.slater/BTWorkshop/KPN/
Velichkovsky BM (1995) Communicating attention: gaze position transfer in cooperative problem solving. Pragmat Cogn 3:199–224
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tapie, J., Terrier, P., Perron, L. et al. Should remote collaborators be represented by avatars? A matter of common ground for collective medical decision-making. AI & Soc 20, 331–350 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0028-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0028-z