Nonverbal behavior generation systems for virtual agents often take an utterance as input and generate nonverbal behaviors that emphasize or illustrate the content of the verbal channel. However, human nonverbal behavior is shaped by more than the content of the speech. It is also influenced by speaker roles, interpersonal relationships, social context, and the cognitive and emotional states of the interactants. As a result, the nonverbal channel may reinforce, weaken, qualify, or even contradict the verbal channel. It may also reveal internal states that are hidden or only indirectly implied in speech, including emotional "leakage" that may be incidental to the immediate interaction. Modeling this richer relationship between verbal and nonverbal behavior is important for designing virtual agents that exhibit realistic, human-like behavior. It is especially critical in training contexts that require nuanced social interpretation, such as counseling simulations involving virtual patients. Drawing on Ekman's framework of verbal nonverbal relationships, we propose a taxonomy of categories in which mismatches between verbal and nonverbal behavior can occur. We then examine alternative approaches for realizing these behaviors using large language models, focusing on whether LLMs can select contextually appropriate mismatched verbal and nonverbal behaviors from a given dialogue and social interaction context. Finally, we evaluate the resulting behaviors in a human-subject study, assessing whether context-driven nonverbal behavior, when embodied in a virtual human, produces the intended effects on observers.
Figures & tables
Prompt
AUs
Gaze Shift/Avert
Nonverbal Contrast
Utterance
41
4
2/8
Dialogue History
39
7
5/8
Context + History
48
10
7/8
TABLE I : Total Action Units and Gaze Shifts per Prompt Type.
Prompt
POSPOS
NEGNEG
POSNEG
NEGPOS
Utterance
3
3
1
1
Dialogue History
1
2
3
2
Context+History
0
1
4
3
TABLE II : Relation counts per Prompt Type.
Nonverbal Relation
Action Units
Gaze Shifts/Aversions
POSPOS
5.0
0.0
POSNEG
5.38
1.75
NEGPOS
4.33
0.33
NEGNEG
6.5
0.83
TABLE III : Action Unit and Gaze Shift per Utterance.
Fig. 1 : A selection AU counts per utterance, down selected based on which were notably different between POS_NEG and NEG_POS contrasts
Fig. 2 : LLM-selected behavior realized in virtual human framework. The left image shows a frame of the pos-pos condition(positive verbal, positive nonverbal and match between verbal-nonverbal channels)- The right image shows the corresponding frame of the pos-neg condition(positive verbal, negative nonverbal and mismatch between verbal-nonverbal channels)
Pos Emo
Neg Emo
VB Pos
NVB Pos
pos-pos
2.81 (0.76)
1.58 (0.66)
4.21 (0.52)
4.05 (0.69)
pos-neg
2.40 (0.87)
1.94 (0.84)
3.79 (0.89)
2.97 (1.16)
neg-neg
1.57 (0.73)
2.98 (0.79)
2.36 (1.14)
2.23 (1.09)
neg-pos
1.98 (0.73)
2.44 (0.71)
3.05 (1.10)
3.28 (0.94)
TABLE IV: Descriptive Analysis of Dependent Variables Across Conditions
Fig. 3 : A demonstration of participants’ perception of speaker in different conditions
Fig. 4 : The distribution of speaker’s expressed emotions perceived by participant’s
Dependent Variable
df
F
p
ηG2
Positive Emotion
2.21, 83.82
40.04
< .001
.267
Negative Emotion
2.23, 84.56
37.22
< .001
.336
Verbal Positivity
2.24, 85.15
29.14
< .001
.365
Non-Verbal Positivity
2.66, 101.26
21.92
< .001
.310
TABLE V : One-Way Repeated-Measures ANOVA Results for Each Dependent Variable
Department of Software, Yonsei University Mirae Campus, Republic of Korea · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Republic of Korea