This paper reports on the second GENEA Challenge to benchmark data-driven automatic co-speech gesture generation. Participating teams used the same speech and motion dataset to build gesture-generation systems. Motion generated by all these systems was rendered to video using a standardised visualisation pipeline and evaluated in several large, crowdsourced user studies. Unlike when comparing different research papers, differences in results are here only due to differences between methods, enabling direct comparison between systems. This year’s dataset was based on 18 hours of full-body motion capture, including fingers, of different persons engaging in dyadic conversation. Ten teams participated in the challenge across two tiers: full-body and upper-body gesticulation. For each tier we evaluated both the human-likeness of the gesture motion and its appropriateness for the specific speech signal. Our evaluations decouple human-likeness from gesture appropriateness, which previously was a major challenge in the field. The evaluation results are a revolution, and a revelation. Some synthetic conditions are rated as significantly more human-like than human motion capture. To the best of our knowledge, this has never been shown before on a high-fidelity avatar. On the other hand, all synthetic motion is found to be vastly less appropriate for the speech than the original motion-capture recordings.

Embodied conversational agents (ECAs) are often designed to produce nonverbal behavior to complement or enhance their verbal communication. One such form of the nonverbal behavior is co-speech gesturing, which involves movements that the agent makes with its arms and hands that are paired with verbal communication. Co-speech gestures for ECAs can be created using different generation methods, divided into rule-based and data-driven processes, with the latter, gaining traction because of the increasing interest from the applied machine learning community. However, reports on gesture generation methods use a variety of evaluation measures, which hinders comparison. To address this, we present a systematic review on co-speech gesture generation methods for iconic, metaphoric, deictic, and beat gestures, including reported evaluation methods. We review 22 studies that have an ECA with a human-like upper body that uses co-speech gesturing in social human-agent interaction. This includes studies that use human participants to evaluate performance. We found most studies use a within-subject design and rely on a form of subjective evaluation, but without a systematic approach. We argue that the field requires more rigorous and uniform tools for co-speech gesture evaluation, and formulate recommendations for empirical evaluation, including standardized phrases and example scenarios to help systematically test generative models across studies. Furthermore, we also propose a checklist that can be used to report relevant information for the evaluation of generative models, as well as to evaluate co-speech gesture use.

This article reports on the second GENEA Challenge to benchmark data-driven automatic co-speech gesture generation. Participating teams used the same speech and motion dataset to build gesture-generation systems. Motion generated by all these systems was rendered to video using a standardised visualisation pipeline and evaluated in several large, crowdsourced user studies. Unlike when comparing different research articles, differences in results are here only due to differences between methods, enabling direct comparison between systems. The dataset was based on 18 hours of full-body motion capture, including fingers, of different persons engaging in a dyadic conversation. Ten teams participated in the challenge across two tiers: full-body and upper-body gesticulation. For each tier, we evaluated both the human-likeness of the gesture motion and its appropriateness for the specific speech signal. Our evaluations decouple human-likeness from gesture appropriateness, which has been a difficult problem in the field. The evaluation results show some synthetic gesture conditions being rated as significantly more human-like than 3D human motion capture. To the best of our knowledge, this has not been demonstrated before. On the other hand, all synthetic motion is found to be vastly less appropriate for the speech than the original motion-capture recordings. We also find that conventional objective metrics do not correlate well with subjective human-likeness ratings in this large evaluation. The one exception is the Fréchet gesture distance (FGD), which achieves a Kendall’s tau rank correlation of around -0.5. Based on the challenge results we formulate numerous recommendations for system building and evaluation.

Embodied conversational agents that interact socially with people in the physical world require multi-modal capabilities, such as appropriately responding to visual features of users. While existing vision-and-language models can generate language based on visual input, this language is not situated in a social interaction in the physical world. We present a novel task called Visual Conversation Starters, where an agent generates a conversation-starting question referring to features visible in an image of the user. We collect a dataset of 4,000 images of people with 12,000 crowdsourced conversation starters, and compare various model architectures: fine-tuning smaller seq2seq or image-to-text models versus zero-shot prompting of GPT-3.5, using image captions versus end-to-end image input, and training on human data versus synthetic questions generated by GPT-3.5. Models were used to generate friendly conversation starters which were evaluated on criteria including language fluency, visual grounding, interestingness and politeness. Results show that GPT-3.5 generates more interesting and polite questions than smaller models that are fine-tuned on crowdsourced data, but vision-to-language models are better at referencing visual features, and they can mimick GPT-3.5's performance. This demonstrates the feasibility of deep visiolinguistic models for situated social agents, forming an important first stage in creating situated multimodal social interaction.

Children encounter high levels of stress and anxiety before receiving medical treatment, such as a vaccination. This paper explores the effect of emotional gesturing in socially assistive robots (SARs) on children's observed and self-reported engagement, as well as self-reported anxiety, fear, and trust during a group vaccination. A total of 249 children interacted with the social robot iPal before and after receiving the vaccine. Our results show an overall positive effect of adding emotional gestures to a SAR's interaction behavior leading to increased engagement and lower anxiety, while increased engagement also resulted in trusting the robot more. Thus, adding emotional gestures during child-robot interaction is a powerful way to improve the child's experience during a group vaccination day.

This paper compares three methods for evaluating computer-generated motion behaviour for animated characters: two commonly used direct rating methods and a newly designed questionnaire. The questionnaire is specifically designed to measure the human-likeness, appropriateness, and intelligibility of the generated motion. Furthermore, this study investigates the suitability of these evaluation tools for assessing subtle forms of human behaviour, such as the subdued motion cues shown when listening to someone. This paper reports six user studies, namely studies that directly rate the appropriateness and human-likeness of a computer character’s motion, along with studies that instead rely on a questionnaire to measure the quality of the motion. As test data, we used the motion generated by two generative models and recorded human gestures, which served as a gold standard. Our findings indicate that when evaluating gesturing motion, the direct rating of human-likeness and appropriateness is to be preferred over a questionnaire. However, when assessing the subtle motion of a computer character, even the direct rating method yields less conclusive results. Despite demonstrating high internal consistency, our questionnaire proves to be less sensitive than directly rating the quality of the motion. The results provide insights into the evaluation of human motion behaviour and highlight the complexities involved in capturing subtle nuances in nonverbal communication. These findings have implications for the development and improvement of motion generation models and can guide researchers in selecting appropriate evaluation methodologies for specific aspects of human behaviour.