Some multimodal signals in humans

In this paper, I will give an overview of some well-studied multimodal signals that humans produce while they communicate with other humans, and discuss the implications of those studies for HCI. I will first discuss a conceptual framework that allows us to distinguish between functional and sensory modalities. This distinction is important, as there are multiple functional modalities using the same sensory modality (e.g., facial expression and eye-gaze in the visual modality). A second theoretically important issue is redundancy. Some signals appear to be redundant with a signal in another modality, whereas others give new information or even appear to give conflicting information (see e.g., the work of Susan Goldin-Meadows on speech accompanying gestures). I will argue that multimodal signals are never truly redundant. First, many gestures that appear at first sight to express the same meaning as the accompanying speech generally provide extra (analog) information about manner, path, etc. Second, the simple fact that the same information is expressed in more than one modality is itself a communicative signal. Armed with this conceptual background, I will then proceed to give an overview of some multimodalsignals that have been investigated in human-human research, and the level of understanding we have of the meaning of those signals. The latter issue is especially important for potential implementations of these signals in artificial agents. First, I will discuss pointing gestures. I will address the issue of the timing of pointing gestures relative to the speech it is supposed to support, the mutual dependency between pointing gestures and speech, and discuss the existence of alternative ways of pointing from other cultures. The most frequent form of pointing that does not involve the index finger is a cultural practice called lip-pointing which employs two visual functional modalities, mouth-shape and eye-gaze, simultaneously for pointing. Next, I will address the issue of eye-gaze. A classical study by Kendon (1967) claims that there is a systematic relationship between eye-gaze (at the interlocutor) and turn-taking states. Research at our institute has shown that this relationship is weaker than has often been assumed. If the dialogue setting contains a visible object that is relevant to the dialogue (e.g., a map), the rate of eye-gaze-at-other drops dramatically and its relationship to turn taking disappears completely. The implications for machine generated eye-gaze are discussed. Finally, I will explore a theoretical debate regarding spontaneous gestures. It has often been claimed that the class of gestures that is called iconic by McNeill (1992) are a “window into the mind”. That is, they are claimed to give the researcher (or even the interlocutor) a direct view into the speaker’s thought, without being obscured by the complex transformation that take place when transforming a thought into a verbal utterance. I will argue that this is an illusion. Gestures can be shown to be specifically designed such that the listener can be expected to interpret them. Although the transformations carried out to express a thought in gesture are indeed (partly) different from the corresponding transformations for speech, they are a) complex, and b) severely understudied. This obviously has consequences both for the gesture research agenda, and for the generation of iconic gestures by machines