The Visual Design and Implementation of an Embodied Conversational Agent in a Shared Decision-Making Context (eCoach)

  • Scott RobertsonEmail author
  • Rob Solomon
  • Mark Riedl
  • Theresa Wicklin Gillespie
  • Toni Chociemski
  • Viraj Master
  • Arun Mohan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9192)


This paper outlines the design process and challenges of creating a character for our implementation of an embodied conversational agent (ECA), specifically integrating diverse views from focus groups consisting of individuals representing different levels of socio-economic status and health literacy. Initial focus groups consisting of members from both higher and lower socio-economic status and health literacy found the stylized ECA to be unappealing. Later focus groups conducted after completion of the educational intervention better accepted the ECA, reporting it to be acceptable.


Computer supported collaborative learning Design and evaluation of collaboration technology Interdisciplinary studies on collaboration technology and learning Methodologies for the study of computer supported collaborative learning and /or technology-enhanced learning 


  1. 1.
    Oshima, L.E., Emanuel, E.J.: Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N. Engl. J. Med. 368(1), 6–8 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCaffery, K.J., Holmes-Rovner, M., Smith, S.K., Rovner, D., Nutbeam, D., Clayman, M.L., Kelly-Blake, K., Wolf, M.S., Sheridan, S.L.: Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 13, S10 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bickmore, T.W., Pfeifer, L.M., Jack, B.W.: Taking the time to care: empowering low health literacy hospital patients with virtual nurse agents. In: CHI 2009, pp. 1265–1274 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Health literacy: report of the council on scientific affairs. Ad hoc committee on health literacy for the council on scientific affairs, american medical association. JAMA 281(6), 552–557 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Paulsen, C.: The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, pp. 1–76 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bickmore, T.W., Pfeifer, L.M., Byron, D., Forsythe, S., Henault, L.E., Jack, B.W., Silliman, R., Paasche-Orlow, M.K.: Usability of conversational agents by patients with inadequate health literacy: evidence from two clinical trials. J. Health Commun. 15, 197–210 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Westpheling, B.P.: Health Literacy Practices in Primary Care Settings: Examples from the Field. The Commonwealth Fund, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cassell, J.: Embodied Conversational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cancer trends progress report - 2011/2012 update. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin, G.A., Aaronson, D.S., Knight, S.J., Carroll, P.R., Dudley, R.A.: Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature. CA Cancer J. Clin. 59, 379–390 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bickmore, T., Gruber, A., Picard, R.: Establishing the computer-patient working alliance in automated health behavior change interventions. Patient Educ. Couns. 59, 21–30 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McDonnell, R., Breidt, M., Bülthoff, H.H.: Render me real?: investigating the effect of render style on the perception of animated virtual humans. Trans. Graph. (TOG) 31(4), 1–11 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mori, M., MacDorman, K.F., Kageki, N.: The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19(3), 98–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baylor, A.L.: The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 59, 291–300 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baylor, A., Kim, Y.: The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baylor, A.L.: Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: role of visual presence and appearance. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 364, 3559–3565 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ring, L., Utami, D., Bickmore, T.: The right agent for the job? In: Bickmore, Timothy, Marsella, Stacy, Sidner, Candace (eds.) IVA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8637, pp. 374–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gulz, A., Haake, M.: Social and visual style in virtual pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Adapting the Interaction Style to Affective Factors, 10th International Conference on User Modelling (UM 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haake, M., Gulz, A.: Visual realism and virtual pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Design and Engagability Conference @ NordiChi 2006 (iDec3) (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Robertson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rob Solomon
    • 1
  • Mark Riedl
    • 2
  • Theresa Wicklin Gillespie
    • 3
  • Toni Chociemski
    • 4
  • Viraj Master
    • 3
  • Arun Mohan
    • 5
  1. 1.Interactive Media Technology CenterGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.School of Interactive ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.School of MedicineEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.School of Public HealthEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  5. 5.ApolloMDAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations