The point of Choi and Clark (2006) was that after many well-designed studies, they have no evidence for either the learning or the motivational benefits of pedagogical agents. In their study, they found compelling evidence that when agents are found to enhance learning, a less expensive and less distracting pedagogical method has equal or greater learning benefits. They have also reviewed evidence (Clark & Choi, 2005) that under some conditions pedagogical agents may distract learners, overload them cognitively, and actually depress learning. They thought it was reasonable therefore to suggest that the current passion for pedagogical agents should be reconsidered because they do not enhance learning or motivation and may actually damage learning. Veletsianos disagrees with the outcome of their study but he offers no evidence to dispute the design of their study or the results of the studies they offered as evidence for their conclusions. The authors have acknowledged Veletsianos' criticism that they "disregard the aesthetic properties of pedagogical agents" but reply in their defense that aesthetics was not the focus of their study.