Achieving common grounds in communication via interfaces: a role of spatial frames for reference [Book Review]
Graduate studies at Western
Poiesis and Praxis 7 (3):189-195 (2010)
|Abstract||The current paper argues for synchronising spatial frames of reference for achieving effective multiparty communication in collaborative virtual environments. Synchronising nonverbal behaviour from different modalities is an important step for simulating face-to-face-interaction where all nonverbal cues are available. Such synchronisation also serves as an effective basis for building multimodal interfaces especially if these have to be deployed for multiparty communication. It is argued that common spatial reference frames are helpful in coordinating different points of attention and facilitating work by serving as the springboard for joint attention among members of the team. Consequently, it is desirable to aim for such common grounds and not just focus on coordinating disjointed virtual spaces for facilitating decision-making by reducing felt collaborative effort. Implementing the synchronisation of spatial reference frames for modern technologies thus serves dual purposes by achieving common grounds in communication and maintaining autonomy of each member at the same time. Towards this end, the current paper proposes the concept of decentred egocentric frame, the origin of which is one’s own body and the spatial relation between two objects is defined with respect to this origin. This frame seems to be important for separating each member’s focus from his own body (self/activities) and also helps in coordinating one’s focus with those of the others whether interacting verbally or nonverbally. This is an important conceptual development as the proposed classification is hypothesised to function in a similar manner across different sensory modalities. The paper concludes with issues on implementation and other future conceptual developments|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Neha Khetrapal (2010). What is Special About Body Based Reference Frame? Human Studies 33 (2):221-227.
Michael Dickson (2004). Quantum Reference Frames in the Context of EPR. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):655-668.
Douglas M. Snyder (1994). On the Arbitrary Choice Regarding Which Inertial Reference Frame is "Stationary" and Which is "Moving" in the Special Theory of Relativity. .
John Campbell (1997). Attention and Frames of Reference in Spatial Reasoning: A Reply to Bryant. Mind and Language 12 (3&4):265–277.
Wilfred Krause (1992). Inertial Reference Frame System. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 23 (1):61-83.
Allen I. Janis (1969). Synchronism by Slow Transport of Clocks in Noninertial Frames of Reference. Philosophy of Science 36 (1):74-81.
Olivier le Guen (2011). Speech and Gesture in Spatial Language and Cognition Among the Yucatec Mayas. Cognitive Science 35 (5):905-938.
Frank Jackson (2004). Why We Need A-Intensions. Philosophical Studies 118 (1-2):257-277.
Elżbieta Łukasiewicz (2010). Husserl's Lebenswelt and the Problem of Spatial Cognition – in Search of Universals. Polish Journal of Philosophy 4 (1):23-43.
Susanna Schellenberg (2010). Perceptual Experience and the Capacity to Act. In N. Gangopadhay, M. Madary & F. Spicer (eds.), Perception, Action, and Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Leonid Tchertov (2005). Spatial Semiosis and Time. Sign Systems Studies 33 (2):297-314.
Jörg R. J. Schirra (1993). A Contribution to Reference Semantics of Spatial Prepositions: The Visualization Problem and its Solution in Vitra. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), [Book Chapter]. Mouton de Gruyter.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads15 ( #86,055 of 739,369 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,369 )
How can I increase my downloads?