CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 480Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningSocial Robot Interaction and HRIVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: Perception, cognition, and motor control

Open access
Rickel, Jeff, Johnson, W. Lewis·1999·Applied Artificial Intelligence
DOI 10.1080/088395199117315
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper describes Steve , an animated agent that helps students learn to perform physical , procedural tasks . The student and Steve cohabit a three - dimensional , simulated mock - up of the student's work environment . Steve can demonstrate how to perform tasks and can also monitor students while they practice tasks , providing assistance when needed . This paper describes Steve's architecture in detail , including perception , cognition , and motor control . The perception module monitors the state of the virtual world , maintains a coherent representation of it , and provides this information to the cognition and motor control modules . The cognition module interprets its perceptual input , chooses appropriate goals , constructs and executes plans to achieve those goals , and sends out motor commands . The motor control module implements these motor commands , controlling Steve's voice , locomotion , gaze , and gestures , allowing Steve to manipulate objects in the virtual world .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/088395199117315

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Situated gesture generation systems for virtual agents and human-robot communication are based on rules and/or procedural generation, which limits naturalness, fluidity and variability and makes it difficult to match contemporary generative co-speech gesture models.

    “All of these systems are based on rules and/or procedural generation, which limits the degree of naturalness, fluidity, and variability that can be achieved in the resulting animations, and makes it difficult to match the gesture quality produced by contemporary generative models for co-speech gestures as described above.”

    From Incorporating Spatial Awareness in Data-Driven Gesture Generation for Virtual Agents (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Allen, J. F., B. W. Miller, E. K. Ringger, and T. Sikorski. 1996. Robust understanding in a dialogue system. In Proc. 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 62 70.
  2. Anderson, J. R., A. T. Corbett, K. R. Koedinger, and R. Pelletier. 1995. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. J . Learning Sci. 4(2):167 207.
  3. Andre, E., and T. Rist. 1996. Coping with temporal constraints in multimedia presentation planning. In Proc. 13th National Conference on Arti cial Intelligence (AAAI-96), 142 147. Menlo Park, Calif.: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
  4. Badler, N. I., C. B. Phillips, and B. L. Webber. 1993. Simulating humans. New York : Oxford University Press.
  5. Billinghurst, M., and J. Savage. 1996. Adding intelligence to the interface. In Proc. IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (VRAIS '96), 168 175. Los Alamitos, Calif.: IEEE Computer Society Press.
  6. Billinghurst, M., J. Savage, P. Oppenheimer, and C. Edmond. 1996. The expert surgical assistant: An intelligent virtual environment with multimodal input. In Proc. Medicine Meets Virtual Reality IV.
  7. Burton, R. R. 1982. Diagnosing bugs in a simple procedural skill. In Intelligent tutoring systems, eds. D. Sleeman and J. Brown, 157 183. San Diego, Calif. : Academic Press.
  8. Cassell, J., C. Pelachaud, N. Badler, M. Steedman, B. Achorn, T. Becket, B. Douville, S. Prevost, and M. Stone. 1994. Animated conversation: Rule-based generation of facial expresion, gesture and spoken intonation for multiple conversational agents. In Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH '94.
  9. Cormen, T. H., C. E. Leiserson, and R. L. Rivest. 1989. Introduction to algorithms. New York : McGraw- Hill.
  10. Douville, B., L. Levison, and N. I. Badler. 1996. Task-level object grasping for simulated agents. Presence 5(4):416 430.
  11. Ferguson, G., J. Allen, and B. Miller. 1996. Trains-95: Towards a mixed-initiative planning assistant. In Proc. 3rd Conference on AI Planning Systems.
  12. Grosz, B. J., and C. L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Comput. Liguis- tics 12(3):175 204.
  13. Johnson, W. L. 1994. Agents that learn to explain themselves. In Proc. T welfth National Conference on Arti cial Intelligence (AAAI-94), 1257 1263. Menlo Park, Calif.: AAAI Press.
  14. Johnson, W. L., S. Marsella, and J. Rickel. 1998a. Pedagogical agents in virtual team training. In Proc. Virtual Worlds and Simulation Conference, vol. 30, Simulation Series. San Diego, Calif.: Society for Computer Simulation International.
  15. Korth, H. F., and A. Silberschatz. 1986. Database system concepts. New York : McGraw-Hill.
  16. Labrou, Y., and T. Finin. 1994. A semantics approach for KQML-A general purpose communication language for software agents. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. New York : ACM Press.
  17. Laird, J. E., A. Newell, and P. S. Rosenbloom. 1987. Soar: An architecture for general intelligence. Arti cial Intelligence 33(1):1 64.
  18. McAllester, D., and D. Rosenblitt. 1991. Systematic nonlinear planning. In Proc. 9th National Conference on Arti cial Intelligence (AAAI-91), 634 639. Menlo Park, Calif.: AAAI Press.
  19. Moore, J. D. 1993. What makes human explanations eVective? In Proc. 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 131 136.
  20. Munro, A., and D. Surmon. 1997. Primitive simulation-centered tutor services. In Proc. AI-ED Workshop on Architectures for Intelligent Simulation-Based Learning Environments.
  21. Munro, A., M. Johnson, D. Surmon, and J. Wogulis. 1993. Attribute-centered simulation authoring for instruction. In Proc. World Conference on Arti cial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED '93), 82 89. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  22. Newell, A. 1990. Uni ed theories of cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  23. Noma, T., and N. I. Badler. 1997. A virtual human presenter. In Proc. IJ CAI W orkshop on Animated Interface Agents: Making T hem Intelligent, 45 51.
  24. Rickel, J. 1988. An intelligent turtoring framework for task-oriented domains. In Proc. International Conference on Intelligent T utoring Systems.
  25. Sacerdoti, E. 1977. A structure for plans and behavior. New York : Elsevier North-Holland.
  26. Stiles, R., L. McCarthy, and M. Pontecorvo. 1995. Training studio: A virtual environment for training. In W orkshop on Simulation and Interaction in Virtual Environments (SIVE-95). Iowa City, Iowa : ACM Press.
  27. Stone, B. A., and J. C. Lester. 1996. Dynamically sequencing an animated pedagogical agent. In Proc. 13th National Conference on Arti cial Intelligence (AAAI-96), 424 431. Menlo Park, Calif.: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
  28. Thorisson, K. R. 1996. Communicative humanoids: A computational model of psychosocial dialogue skills. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
  29. Trias, T. S., S. Chopra, B. D. Reich, M. B. Moore, N. I. Badler, B. L. Webber, and C. W. Geib. 1996. Decision networks for integrating the behaviors of virtual agents and avatars. In Proc. IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (VRAIS '96), 156 162. Los Alamitos, Calif.: IEEE Computer Society Press.
  30. Weld, D. S. 1994. An introduction to least commitment planning. AI Magazine 15(4):27 61.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
ORCID
Johnson, W. Lewis
Venue
Applied Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1999-05
Volume
13
Issue
4-5
Pages
343-382
ISSN
  • 0883-9514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-6545
DOI
10.1080/088395199117315
OpenAlex
W2159973998
Cited by
480
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
FWCI
37.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Applied Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
animated agents, procedural training, virtual reality, student monitoring, perception, cognition, motor control, goal selection, planning, gesture control, virtual environment simulation, agent architecture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review