Machine Understanding of Human Behavior

A widely accepted prediction is that computing will move to the background, weaving itself into the fabric of our everyday living spaces and projecting the human user into the foreground. If this prediction is to come true, then next generation computing, which we will call human computing, should be about anticipatory user interfaces that should be human-centered, built for humans based on human models. They should transcend the traditional keyboard and mouse to include natural, human-like interactive functions including understanding and emulating certain human behaviors such as affective and social signaling. This article discusses a number of components of human behavior, how they might be integrated into computers, and how far we are from realizing the front end of human computing, that is, how far are we from enabling computers to understand human behavior

Continuous Interaction with a Virtual Human

Attentive Speaking and Active Listening require that a Virtual Human be capable of simultaneous perception/interpretation and production of communicative behavior. A Virtual Human should be able to signal its attitude and attention while it is listening to its interaction partner, and be able to attend to its interaction partner while it is speaking – and modify its communicative behavior on-the-fly based on what it perceives from its partner. This report presents the results of a four week summer project that was part of eNTERFACE’10. The project resulted in progress on several aspects of continuous interaction such as scheduling and interrupting multimodal behavior, automatic classification of listener responses, generation of response eliciting behavior, and models for appropriate reactions to listener responses. A pilot user study was conducted with ten participants. In addition, the project yielded a number of deliverables that are released for public access

Evaluation campaigns and TRECVid

The TREC Video Retrieval Evaluation (TRECVid) is an international benchmarking activity to encourage research in video information retrieval by providing a large test collection, uniform scoring procedures, and a forum for organizations interested in comparing their results. TRECVid completed its fifth annual cycle at the end of 2005 and in 2006 TRECVid will involve almost 70 research organizations, universities and other consortia. Throughout its existence, TRECVid has benchmarked both interactive and automatic/manual searching for shots from within a video corpus, automatic detection of a variety of semantic and low-level video features, shot boundary detection and the detection of story boundaries in broadcast TV news. This paper will give an introduction to information retrieval (IR) evaluation from both a user and a system perspective, highlighting that system evaluation is by far the most prevalent type of evaluation carried out. We also include a summary of TRECVid as an example of a system evaluation benchmarking campaign and this allows us to discuss whether such campaigns are a good thing or a bad thing. There are arguments for and against these campaigns and we present some of them in the paper concluding that on balance they have had a very positive impact on research progress