**1. Introduction**

26 Will-be-set-by-IN-TECH

68 Virtual Reality and Environments

Ritchie, J. M., Lim, T., Sung, R. S., Corney, J. R. & Rea, H. (2008). The analysis of design

Sanderson, P. M., Watson, M. O., Russell, W. J., Jenkins, S., Liu, D., Green, N., Llewelyn,

Sarlegna, F. R., Gauthier, G. M. & Blouin, J. (2007). Influence of feedback modality on

Sarter, N. B. (2006). Multimodal information presentation: Design guidance and research

Savall, J., Borro, D., Amundarain, A., Martin, J., Gil, J. & Matey, L. (2004). Lhifam - large haptic

*Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)*, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Scott, O. (2005). Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: review., *CyberPsychology &*

Seth, A., Su, H.-J. & Vance, J. M. (2008). Development of a dual-handed haptic assembly system: Sharp, *Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering* 8. Sheridan, T. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence, *Presence: Teleoperators and*

Sumby, W. & Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise., *Journal of*

Wan, H., Gao, S., Peng, Q., Dai, G. & Zhang, F. (2004). Mivas: A multi-modal immersive

Weller, J. M. (2004). Simulation in undergraduate medical education: bridging the gap

Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance predictions., *Theoretical Issues in*

Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L. & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition

Witmer, B. & Singer, M. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire., *Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments* 7: 225–240. Yuviler-Gavish, N., Yechiam, E. & Kallai, A. (2011). Learning in multimodal training:

*Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference*.

between theory and practice., *Medical Education* 38: 32–38.

virtual assembly system, *Proceedings of DETC'04: ASME Design Engineering Technical*

between modalities of input, central processing, and output., *Human Factors*

Visual guidance can be both appealing and disadvantageous in spatial tasks., *Int.*

challenges., *International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics* 36: 439–445.

distracted anesthesiologist., *Anesthesia and Analgesia* .

*Engineering* 5: 507–522.

*of Motor Behavior* pp. 247–258.

*Virtual Environments* 1: 120–125.

*the Acoustical Society of America* 26: 212–215.

*J. Hum.-Comput. Stud.* 69(3): 113–122.

*Behavior* 8: 215–216.

*Ergonomics Science* .

25: 227–248.

and manufacturing tasks using haptic and immersive vr: Some case studies, *Product*

K., Cole, P., Shek, V. & S., K. S. (2008). Advanced auditory displays and head-mounted displays: advantages and disadvantages for monitoring by the

sensorimotor adaptation: Contribution of visual, kinesthetic, and verbal cues, *Journal*

interface for aeronautics maintainability, *In Video Proceedings of the IEEE International*

In a Collaborative Virtual Environment (CVE) for learning, an automatic analysis of collaborative interaction is helpful, either for a human or a virtual tutor, in a number of ways: to personalize or adapt the learning activity, to supervise the apprentices' progress, to scaffold learners or to track the students' involvement, among others. However, this monitoring task is a challenge that demands to understand and assess the interaction in a computational mode.

In real life, when people interact to carry out a collaborative goal, they tend to communicate exclusively in terms that facilitate the task achievement; this communication goes through verbal and nonverbal channels. In multiuser computer scenarios, the graphical representation of the user, his/her avatar, is his/her means to interact with others and it comprises the means to display nonverbal cues as gaze direction or pointing.

Particularly in a computer environment with visual feedback for interaction, collaborative interaction analysis should not be based only on dialogue, but also on the participants' nonverbal communication (NVC) where the interlocutor's answer can be an action or a gesture.

Human nonverbal behavior has been broadly studied, but as Knapp and Hall pointed out on their well-known book (2007): *"…the nonverbal cues sent in the form of computer-generated visuals will challenge the study of nonverbal communication in ways never envisioned".* 

Within this context, in a CVE each user action can be evaluated, in such a way that his/her nonverbal behavior represents a powerful resource for collaborative interaction analyses.

On the other hand, virtual tutors are mainly intended for guiding and/or supervising the training task, that is, they are task-oriented rather than oriented to facilitate collaboration.

With the aim to conduct automatic analyses intended to facilitate collaboration in small groups, the interpretation of the users' avatars nonverbal interaction during collaboration in CVEs for learning is here discussed. This scheme was formulated based on a NVC literature review in both, face-to-face and Virtual Environments (VE). In addition, an empirical study conducted to understand the potential of this monitoring type based on nonverbal behavior is presented.

The Users' Avatars Nonverbal Interaction in Collaborative Virtual Environments for Learning 71

Three-dimensional (3D) environments – also known as Virtual Reality (VR)

However, nowadays it is hard to imagine a multi-user VE without a graphical

VR environments offer to their users different immersion degrees covering a wide range of possibilities that goes from the less immersive systems using only traditional desktop devices such as keyboard, mouse and monitor, to the highly immersive that use VR specific

The intend in using a CVE for instruction is to promote particular forms of interaction among the students inside the environment, by means of creating, encouraging, or enriching situations that would trigger learning mechanisms in the way Dillenbourg (1999) proposed. CVEs provide the learner with a diversified set of computational features as well as a powerful context for learning in which time, scale and physics can be controlled; where participants can get new capabilities such as the ability to fly, or to observe the environment

CVEs offer a space that brings remote people and remote objects together into a spatial and social proximity creating a natural interaction, which allows better communication awareness (Wolff et al., 2005) and where users are likely to be engaged in interaction with the virtual world and with other inhabitants through verbal and nonverbal channels. These characteristics make them a proper scenario for knowledge construction, concurrent with the socio-constructivist theory, as well as a proper tool for training in socio-technical tasks

For the multiuser condition, 3D CVEs represent a communication technology on their own right due to its highly visual and interactive interface character. They offer a learning context that may allow the trainees to practice skills and abilities, and to get knowledge in a situation that approximates the conditions under which they will be used in real life, but

CVEs can be used to train one or more students in the execution of a certain task, mostly in situations in which training in the real environments is either impossible or undesirable

In the Computer Aided Intelligent Instruction paradigm, there is a growing interest on the research aim of knowledge such as Intelligent Virtual Environments (IVE). VEs may incorporate in different degrees, characteristics of learning environments through an Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). Where the intelligence skills generally fall into a Pedagogical Virtual Agent (PVA) to engage and motivate students along their learning

The traditional architecture for the ITS consists of four modules: the expert or domain module, containing the information to be taught; the student module, which maintains individualized information of the students; the tutoring module, which provides a model of the teaching process; and, the interactions with the learner controlled by the communication

devices such as head-mounted displays (HMD), data gloves, or the CAVETM .

from different perspectives as an object or with any other virtual embodiment.

(e.g. in coordinated situation such as rescue operations or enterprise logistic).

using a safe and flexible environment where materials do not break or wear out.

environments.

because it is costly or dangerous.

**1.2 Intelligent CVEs** 

process.

representation.
