Lucca Eloy
Angela E.B. Stewart
Mary Jean Amon
Valerie Shute
ABSTRACT
We adopt a multimodal approach to investigating team interactions in the context of remote collaborative problem solving (CPS). Our goal is to understand multimodal patterns that emerge and their relation with collaborative outcomes. We measured speech rate, body movement, and galvanic skin response from 101 triads (303 participants) who used video conferencing software to collaboratively solve challenging levels in an educational physics game. We use multi-dimensional recurrence quantification analysis (MdRQA) to quantify patterns of team-level regularity, or repeated patterns of activity in these three modalities. We found that teams exhibit significant regularity above chance baselines. Regularity was unaffected by task factors. but had a quadratic relationship with session time in that it initially increased but then decreased as the session progressed. Importantly, teams that produce more varied behavioral patterns (irregularity) reported higher emotional valence and performed better on a subset of the problem solving tasks. Regularity did not predict arousal or subjective perceptions of the collaboration. We discuss implications of our findings for the design of systems that aim to improve collaborative outcomes by monitoring the ongoing collaboration and intervening accordingly.
- Alterman,R. and Harsch, K. 2017. A more reflective form of joint problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 12, 1 (Mar. 2017), 9–33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9250-1.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ambady,N. and Rosenthal, R. 1993. Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64, 3 (1993), 431.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amon,M.J., Vrzakova, H. and D'Mello, S.K. 2019. Beyond dyadic synchrony: Multimodal behavioral irregularity predicts quality of triadic collaborative problem solving. Cognitive Science. (2019).Google Scholar
- Aran,O. and Gatica-Perez, D. 2013. One of a kind. Proceedings of the 15th ACM on International conference on multimodal interaction - ICMI ’13 (New York, New York, USA, 2013), 11–18.Google Scholar
- Ashenfelter,K.T. 2008. Simultaneous analysis of verbal and nonverbal data during conversation: Symmetry and turn-taking. Dissertation Abstracts International, B: Sciences and Engineering. (2008).Google Scholar
- Avci,U. and Aran, O. 2016. Predicting the performance in decision-making tasks: From individual cues to group interaction. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia. 18, 4 (Apr. 2016), 643–658. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2016.2521348.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barron,B. 2000. Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 9, 4 (Oct. 2000), 403–436. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barsade,S.G. and Gibson, D.E. 2012. Group affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 21, 2 (Apr. 2012), 119–123. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412438352.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Basu,S., Choudhury, T., Clarkson, B. and Pentland, A. 2001. Towards measuring human interactions in conversational settings. Proc. IEEE CVPR Workshop on Cues in Communication (2001).Google Scholar
- Bates,D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. and Walker, S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using {lme4}. Journal of Statistical Software. 67, 1 (2015), 1–48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Beyan,C., Carissimi, N., Capozzi, F., Vascon, S., Bustreo, M., Pierro, A., Becchio, C. and Murino, V. 2016. Detecting emergent leader in a meeting environment using nonverbal visual features only. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI 2016 (New York, New York, USA, 2016), 317–324.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Binkley,M., Erstad O., H., J. Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M. and Rumble, M. 2012. Defining twenty-first century skills. Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills.Google Scholar
- Bosch,N., D'Mello, S., Baker, R., Ocumpaugh, J., Shute, V., Ventura, M., Wang, L. and Zhao, W. 2015. Automatic detection of learning-centered affective states in the wild. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (2015), 379–388.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Braithwaite,J., Watson, D., Robert, J. and Mickey, R. 2013. A guide for analysing electrodermal activity (EDA) & skin conductance responses (SCRs) for psychological experiments. Psychophysiological Research. (2013).Google Scholar
- Brannick,M.T. and Prince, C. 1997. An overview of team performance management. Team performance assessment and measurement: theory, methods, and applications.Google Scholar
- Burleson,B.R. and Greene, J.O. 2003. Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Butler,E.A. and Randall, A.K. 2013. Emotional Coregulation in Close Relationships. Emotion Review. 5, 2 (Apr. 2013), 202–210. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912451630.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Coco,M.I. and Dale, R. 2014. Cross-recurrence quantification analysis of categorical and continuous time series: an R package. Frontiers in Psychology. 5, (Jun. 2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00510.Google Scholar
- Conley,D.T. 2014. The common core state standards: Insight into their development. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
- Cornejo,C., Cuadros, Z., Morales, R. and Paredes, J. 2017. Interpersonal coordination: Methods, achievements, and challenges. Frontiers in Psychology. 8, (Sep. 2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01685.Google Scholar
- Critchley,H.D., Elliott, R., Mathias, C.J. and Dolan, R.J. 2000. Neural activity relating to generation and representation of galvanic skin conductance responses: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Neuroscience. 20, 8 (2000), 3033–3040.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D'Mello,S., Dale, R. and Graesser, A. 2012. Disequilibrium in the mind, disharmony in the body. Cognition & Emotion. 26, 2 (2012), 362–374.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dale,R., Fusaroli, R., Duran, N.D. and Richardson, D.C. 2013. The self-organization of human interaction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Elsevier. 43–95.Google Scholar
- Dale,R., Warlaumont, A.S. and Richardson, D.C. 2011. Nominal cross recurrence as a generalized lag sequential analysis for behavioral streams. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos. 21, 04 (2011), 1153–1161.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ekman,P., Levenson, R. and Friesen, W. 1983. Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science. 221, 4616 (Sep. 1983), 1208–1210. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6612338.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ekman,R. 1997. What the face reveals: Basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
- Evans,C.R. and Dion, K.L. 1991. Group cohesion and performance. Small Group Research. 22, 2 (May 1991), 175–186. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eyben,F., Scherer, K.R., Schuller, B.W., Sundberg, J., Andre, E., Busso, C., Devillers, L.Y., Epps, J., Laukka, P., Narayanan, S.S. and Truong, K.P. 2016. The Geneva Minimalistic Acoustic Parameter Set (GeMAPS) for voice research and affective computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. 7, 2 (Apr. 2016), 190–202. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2015.2457417.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Flor,M., Yoon, S.-Y., Hao, J., Liu, L. and von Davier, A. 2016. Automated classification of collaborative problem solving interactions in simulated science tasks. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (2016), 31–41.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gardner,D.G. and Pierce, J.L. 2016. Organization-based self-esteem in work teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 19, 3 (May 2016), 394–408. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215590491.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gigone,D. and Hastie, R. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65, 5 (1993), 959–974. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.959.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gil,M.C. and Henning, R.A. 2000. Determinants of perceived teamwork: Examination of team performance and social psychophysiology. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 44, 12 (Jul. 2000), 2-743-2–746. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004401283.Google Scholar
- Gorman,J.C., Amazeen, P.G. and Cooke, N.J. 2010. Team coordination dynamics. Research in Higher Education. (2010).Google Scholar
- Gorman,J.C., Cooke, N.J., Amazeen, P.G. and Fouse, S. 2012. Measuring patterns in team interaction sequences using a discrete recurrence approach. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 54, 4 (Aug. 2012), 503–517. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811426140.Google ScholarCross Ref
- ]Grafsgaard,J., Duran, N., Randall, A., Tao, C. and D'Mello, S. 2018. Generative multimodal models of nonverbal synchrony in close relationships. 2018 13th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2018) (2018), 195–202.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Griffin,P., Care, E. and McGaw, B. 2012. The changing role of education and schools. Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Springer. 1–15.Google Scholar
- Gully,S.M., Devine, D.J. and Whitney, D.J. 1995. A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance. Small Group Research. 26, 4 (Nov. 1995), 497–520. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496495264003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Häkkinen,P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Näykki, P. and Valtonen, T. 2017. Preparing teacher-students for twenty-first-century learning practices (PREP 21): a framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching. 23, 1 (Jan. 2017), 25–41. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1203772.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harrison,D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. 1998. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal. 41, 1 (Feb. 1998), 96–107. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/256901.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Helm,J.L., Sbarra, D. and Ferrer, E. 2012. Assessing cross-partner associations in physiological responses via coupled oscillator models. Emotion. 12, 4 (2012), 748–762. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025036.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henning,R.A., Armstead, A.G. and Ferris, J.K. 2009. Social psychophysiological compliance in a four-person research team. Applied Ergonomics. 40, 6 (Nov. 2009), 1004–1010. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.04.009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henning,R.A. and Korbelak, K.T. 2005. Social-psychophysiological compliance as a predictor of future team performance. Psychologia. 48, 2 (2005), 84–92.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hesse,F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K. and Griffin, P. 2015. A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Springer. 37–56.Google Scholar
- Ishii,R., Otsuka, K., Kumano, S., Higashinaka, R. and Tomita, J. 2018. Analyzing gaze behavior and dialogue act during turn-taking for estimating empathy skill level. Proceedings of the 2018 on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI ’18 (New York, New York, USA, 2018), 31–39.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jayagopi,D.B., Hung, H., Yeo, C. and Gatica-Perez, D. 2009. Modeling dominance in group conversations using nonverbal activity cues. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing. 17, 3 (Mar. 2009), 501–513. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2008.2008238.Google ScholarCross Ref
- ]Jermann,P., Mullins, D., Nüssli, M.-A. and Dillenbourg, P. 2011. Collaborative gaze footprints: Correlates of interaction quality. International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (2011).Google Scholar
- Kendon,A. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kerr,N.L. and Tindale, R.S. 2004. Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology. 55, 1 (Feb. 2004), 623–655. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kim,T., Chang, A., Holland, L. and Pentland, A.S. 2008. Meeting mediator: enhancing group collaborationusing sociometric feedback. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (2008), 457–466.Google Scholar
- Konvalinka,I., Xygalatas, D., Bulbulia, J., Schjodt, U., Jegindo, E.-M., Wallot, S., Van Orden, G. and Roepstorff, A. 2011. Synchronized arousal between performers and related spectators in a fire-walking ritual. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108, 20 (May 2011), 8514–8519. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016955108.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ku,H.-Y., Tseng, H.W. and Akarasriworn, C. 2013. Collaboration factors, teamwork satisfaction, and student attitudes toward online collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior. 29, 3 (May 2013), 922–929. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.019.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Langfred,C.W. 1998. Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? Small Group Research. 29, 1 (Feb. 1998), 124–143. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496498291005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Latif,N., Barbosa, A. V., Vatiokiotis-Bateson, E., Castelhano, M.S. and Munhall, K.G. 2014. Movement coordination during conversation. PLoS ONE. 9, 8 (Aug. 2014), e105036. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105036.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laughlin,P.R. and Ellis, A.L. 1986. Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 22, 3 (1986), 177–189.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laughlin,P.R., Hatch, E.C., Silver, J.S. and Boh, L. 2006. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and social Psychology. 90, 4 (2006), 644.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laughlin,P.R., Kerr, N.L., Davis, J.H., Halff, H.M. and Marciniak, K.A. 1975. Group size, member ability, and social decision schemes on an intellective task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31, 3 (1975), 522.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Levine,J.M. 2008. Small groups. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Marwan,N., Romano, C.M., Thiel, M. and Kurths, J. 2007. Recurrence plots for the analysis of complex systems. Physics Reports. 438, 5–6 (Jan. 2007), 237–329. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2006.11.001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McManus,M.M. and Aiken, R.M. 2016. Supporting effective collaboration: Using a rearview mirror to look forward. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 26, 1 (Mar. 2016), 365–377. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0068-6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Miguel,J., Andres, L., Mercedes, M., Rodrigo, T. and Sugay, J.O. 2014. An exploratory analysis of confusion among students using Newton's Playground. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computers in Education. (2014).Google Scholar
- Morrow,L., Vrtunski, P.B., Kim, Y. and Boller, F. 1981. Arousal responses to emotional stimuli and laterality of lesion. Neuropsychologia. 19, 1 (1981), 65–71.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Murray,G. and Oertel, C. 2018. Predicting group performance in task-based interaction. Proceedings of the 2018 on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (2018), 14–20.Google Scholar
- Nijstad,B.A., Stroebe, W. and Lodewijkx, H.F.M. 2003. Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 39, 6 (Nov. 2003), 531–548. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00040-4.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nüssli,M.-A. and Jermann, P. 2012. Effects of sharing text selections on gaze cross-recurrence and interaction quality in a pair programming task. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’12 (New York, New York, USA, 2012), 1125.Google Scholar
- Okada,S., Ohtake, Y., Nakano, Y.I., Hayashi, Y., Huang, H.-H., Takase, Y. and Nitta, K. 2016. Estimating communication skills using dialogue acts and nonverbal features in multiple discussion datasets. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI 2016 (New York, New York, USA, 2016), 169–176.Google ScholarDigital Library
- V., Marraccini, M.E., Weyandt, L.L., Wilder-Smith, O., McGee, H.A., Liu, S. and Goodwin, M.S. 2017. Interpersonal autonomic physiology: A systematic review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 21, 2 (May 2017), 99–141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316628405.Google Scholar
- Peñarroja,V., Orengo, V. and Zornoza, A. 2017. Reducing perceived social loafing in virtual teams: The effect of team feedback with guided reflexivity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 47, 8 (Aug. 2017), 424–435. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12449.Google ScholarCross Ref
- PISA,O. 2010. Field trial problem solving framework: Draft subject to possible revision after the field trial. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- PISA,O. 2015. Field trial problem solving framework: Draft subject to possible revision after the field trial. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- Rendeiro,C., Vauzour, D., Kean, R.J., Butler, L.T., Rattray, M., Spencer, J.P.E. and Williams, C.M. 2012. Blueberry supplementation induces spatial memory improvements and region-specific regulation of hippocampal BDNF mRNA expression in young rats. Psychopharmacology. 223, 3 (Oct. 2012), 319–330. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2719-8.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richardson,D.C. and Dale, R. 2005. Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science. 29, 6 (Nov. 2005), 1045–1060. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_29.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richardson,D.C., Dale, R. and Kirkham, N.Z. 2007. The art of conversation is coordination. Psychological science. 18, 5 (2007), 407–413.Google Scholar
- Riley,M.A., Richardson, M.J., Shockley, K. and Ramenzoni, V.C. 2011. Interpersonal synergies. Frontiers in Psychology. 2, (2011). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00038.Google Scholar
- Roschelle,J. and Teasley, S.D. 1995. The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. Computer supported collaborative learning (1995), 69–97.Google Scholar
- Rosen,Y. 2015. Computer-based assessment of collaborative problem solving: Exploring the feasibility of human-to-agent approach. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 25, 3 (2015), 380–406.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rosen,Y. and Rimor, R. 2016. Teaching and assessing problem solving in online collaborative environment. Professional Development and Workplace Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global. 254–269.Google Scholar
- Samrose,S., Zhao, R., White, J., Li, V., Nova, L., Lu, Y., Ali, M.R. and Hoque, M.E. 2018. CoCo: Collaboration Coach for understanding team dynamics during video conferencing. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies. 1, 4 (2018), 160.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sanchez-Cortes,D., Aran, O., Jayagopi, D.B., Schmid Mast, M. and Gatica-Perez, D. 2013. Emergent leaders through looking and speaking: from audio-visual data to multimodal recognition. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces. 7, 1–2 (Mar. 2013), 39–53. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-012-0101-0.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schmidt,R.C. and Richardson, M.J. 2008. Dynamics of interpersonal coordination. Coordination: Neural, behavioral and social dynamics. Springer. 281–308.Google Scholar
- Schulze,J. and Krumm, S. 2017. The “virtual team player”: A review and initial model of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for virtual collaboration. Organizational Psychology Review. (2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616675522.Google Scholar
- Sears,D.A. and Reagin, J.M. 2013. Individual versus collaborative problem solving: divergent outcomes depending on task complexity. Instructional Science. 41, 6 (Nov. 2013), 1153–1172. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9271-8.Google ScholarCross Ref
- ShimmerSensing 2017. GSR+ user guide.Google Scholar
- Shockley,K., Santana, M.-V. and Fowler, C.A. 2003. Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 29, 2 (Apr. 2003), 326–332. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.326.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shockley,K.D. 2005. Cross recurrence quantification of interpersonal postural activity. Tutorials in contemporary nonlinear methods for the behavioral sciences.Google Scholar
- signaldevelopers 2014. {signal}: Signal processing.Google Scholar
- Spottiswoode,S.J.P. and May, E.C. 2003. Skin conductance prestimulus response: Analyses, artifacts and a pilot study. J Scient Explor. (2003).Google Scholar
- Stewart,A.E.B., Keirn, Z.A. and D'Mello, S.K. 2018. Multimodal modeling of coordination and coregulation patterns in speech rate during triadic collaborative problem solving. Proceedings of the 2018 on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (2018), 21–30.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tausczik,Y.R. and Pennebaker, J.W. 2013. Improving teamwork using real-time language feedback. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2013), 459–468.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vaidyanathan,P., Pelz, J., Alm, C., Shi, P. and Haake, A. 2014. Recurrence quantification analysis reveals eye-movement behavior differences between experts and novices. Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications - ETRA ’14 (New York, New York, USA, 2014), 303–306.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Voyles,E.C., Bailey, S.F. and Durik, A.M. 2015. New pieces of the jigsaw classroom: Increasing accountability to reduce social loafing in student group projects. The New School Psychology Bulletin. (2015).Google Scholar
- Vrzakova,H., Stewart, A.E.B. and Amon, M.J. 2019. Dynamics of visual attention in multiparty collaborative problem solving using multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis. (2019), 1–14.Google Scholar
- Wallot, S., Roepstorff, A. and Mønster, D. 2016. Multidimensional Recurrence Quantification Analysis (MdRQA) for the analysis of multidimensional time-series: A software implementation in MATLAB and its application to group-level data in joint action. Frontiers in Psychology. 7, (Nov. 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01835.Google Scholar
- WebberJr, C.L. and Zbilut, J.P. 2005. Recurrence quantification analysis of nonlinear dynamical systems. Tutorials in contemporary nonlinear methods for the behavioral sciences. 94, (2005), 26–94.Google Scholar
- vonZimmermann, J. and Richardson, D.C. 2016. Verbal synchrony and action dynamics in large groups. Frontiers in Psychology. 7, (Dec. 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02034.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Dynamics of Visual Attention in Multiparty Collaborative Problem Solving using Multidimensional Recurrence Quantification Analysis
CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsMultiparty collaborative problem solving - an increasingly important context in the 21st century workforce - suffers from a degradation of social and behavioral signals when attempted remotely, resulting in suboptimal outcomes. We investigate teams' ...
Accessible multimodal-interaction platform for computer-supported collaborative learning system
IMCOM '17: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and CommunicationIn order to facilitate learning in the context of social interactions, a number of studies have proposed computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) systems by using information and communication technologies. The basic design of a CSCL system is ...
Multimodal support for social dynamics in co-located meetings
In this paper, we present a system that employs perceptual technologies (i.e. technologies that perceive the context through sensors such as cameras and microphone) to provide feedback about people's behaviour in small group meetings. The system ...
Comments