APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TRAINING USING A HUMAN INTERACTION SIMULATOR

• US 20070243517A1
• Filed: 04/02/2007
• Published: 10/18/2007
• Est. Priority Date: 11/25/1998
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Johns Hopkins University
• Original Assignee: Johns Hopkins University
• Inventors: OLSEN, DALE
• Granted Patent: US 7,648,365 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 434/365
• CPC Class Codes: G09B 5/065 Combinations of audio and video presentations, e.g. videotapes, videodiscs, television systems
• CPC Class Codes: G09B 7/04 characterised by modifying the teaching programme in response to a wrong answer, e.g. repeating the question, supplying a further explanation
• CPC Class Codes: Y10S 345/956 Language driven animation

Abstract

A computer based training tool and method that emulates human behavior using a computer-simulated person in a realistic scenario. It provides an interactive experience in detecting deception during interviews and acceptance of statements during interpersonal conversations. The simulated person provides verbal responses in combination with an animated video display reflecting the body language of the simulated person in response to questions asked and during and after responses to the questions. The questions and responses are pre-programmed and interrelated groups of questions and responses are maintained in dynamic tables which are constantly adjusted as a function of questions asked and responses generated. The system provides a critique and numerical score for each training session.

Claims

1. An interactive method, including the steps of:

selecting a statement from a list of prepared statements;

observing facial expressions of a simulated person in a video presentation;

observing body language of said simulated person in said video presentation;

listening to an audio response by said simulated person; and

selecting a statement from a list of prepared statements in response to said observed facial expressions, body language and audio response.

2. An interactive method as defined by claim 1, including the step of repeating the steps of claim 1 until a determination regarding the veracity of said simulated person is made.

3. An interactive method as defined by claim 2, including the step of signaling the program creating said video presentations and audio responses of said determination regarding the veracity of said simulated person.

4. An interactive method as defined by claim 1, including the step of signaling the program creating said video presentations and audio responses if said video presentation constitutes a clue regarding the veracity of said simulated person.

5. An interactive method as defined by claim 1, including the step of signaling the program creating said video presentations and audio responses if said audio response constitutes a clue regarding the veracity of said simulated person.

15. An interactive method according to claim 1, wherein the statement selected is articulated.

6. An interactive method, including the steps of:

verbalizing a statement including one or more key words selected from a list of prepared statements including said key words;

observing the facial expression of a simulated person in a video presentation;

observing the body language of said simulated person in said video presentation;

listening to an audio response by said simulated person; and

verbalizing a statement including one or more key words selected from a list of prepared statements including said key words in response to said observed facial expression and body language and said audio response.

7. An interactive method as defined by claim 6, including the step of repeating the steps of claim 6 until a determination regarding the veracity of said simulated person is made.

8. An interactive method as defined by claim 7, including the step of signaling the program creating said video presentations and audio responses of said determination regarding the veracity of said simulated person.

9. An interactive method as defined by claim 6, including the step of signaling the program creating said video presentations and audio responses if said video presentation constituted a clue regarding the veracity of said simulated person.

10. An interactive method as defined by claim 6, including the step of signaling the program creating said video presentations and audio responses if said audio response constituted a clue regarding the veracity of said simulated person.

16. An interactive method according to claim 6, wherein the step of verbalizing a statement includes articulating the statement to a voice activated system.

11. An interactive method, said method comprising the steps of:

initializing a program including weighted questions;

allocating quantitative emotional values to rapport states, the quantitative emotional values for the rapport states adding up to 1;

affecting the flow of the emotional values from rapport state to rapport state based on stimuli derived from questions asked.

12. A method according to claim 11, wherein the rapport states include worst, bad, neutral, good and excellent.

13. A method according to claim 12, wherein deteriorating rapport state occurs more easily than building rapport state.

14. A method according to claim 13, wherein the stimuli being computed based on an average of all previous questions asked during the interview rapport value and current question rapport value, employing the following algorithm:

S_r=0.8[memory*S<sub>r−

1</sub>+(1−

memory)*S_q]+0.2 (average rapport value)

where S_r is the stimulus value, S<sub>r−

1</sub> is the stimulus before the last question, and S_q is the average rapport value of all previous questions and the current question.