scholarly journals Grounding behaviours with conversational interfaces: effects of embodiment and failures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimosthenis Kontogiorgos ◽  
Andre Pereira ◽  
Joakim Gustafson
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Social Activity ◽  
Referential Communication ◽  
Social Cues ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Social Signals ◽  
Verbal Cues ◽  
Communication Task ◽  
Conversational Interfaces ◽  
Task Oriented

AbstractConversational interfaces that interact with humans need to continuously establish, maintain and repair common ground in task-oriented dialogues. Uncertainty, repairs and acknowledgements are expressed in user behaviour in the continuous efforts of the conversational partners to maintain mutual understanding. Users change their behaviour when interacting with systems in different forms of embodiment, which affects the abilities of these interfaces to observe users’ recurrent social signals. Additionally, humans are intellectually biased towards social activity when facing anthropomorphic agents or when presented with subtle social cues. Two studies are presented in this paper examining how humans interact in a referential communication task with wizarded interfaces in different forms of embodiment. In study 1 (N = 30), we test whether humans respond the same way to agents, in different forms of embodiment and social behaviour. In study 2 (N = 44), we replicate the same task and agents but introduce conversational failures disrupting the process of grounding. Findings indicate that it is not always favourable for agents to be anthropomorphised or to communicate with non-verbal cues, as human grounding behaviours change when embodiment and failures are manipulated.

scholarly journals The positive side of a negative reference: the delay between linguistic processing and common ground

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 160827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmundo Kronmüller ◽  
Ira Noveck ◽  
Natalia Rivera ◽  
Francisco Jaume-Guazzini ◽  
Dale Barr
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Critical Condition ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Referential Communication ◽  
Linguistic Processing ◽  
Positive Side ◽  
Communication Task ◽  
Linguistic Unit ◽  
The Common ◽  
Linguistic Input

Interlocutors converge on names to refer to entities. For example, a speaker might refer to a novel looking object as the jellyfish and, once identified, the listener will too. The hypothesized mechanism behind such referential precedents is a subject of debate. The common ground view claims that listeners register the object as well as the identity of the speaker who coined the label. The linguistic view claims that, once established, precedents are treated by listeners like any other linguistic unit, i.e. without needing to keep track of the speaker. To test predictions from each account, we used visual-world eyetracking, which allows observations in real time, during a standard referential communication task. Participants had to select objects based on instructions from two speakers. In the critical condition, listeners sought an object with a negative reference such as not the jellyfish . We aimed to determine the extent to which listeners rely on the linguistic input, common ground or both. We found that initial interpretations were based on linguistic processing only and that common ground considerations do emerge but only after 1000 ms. Our findings support the idea that—at least temporally—linguistic processing can be isolated from common ground.

scholarly journals Building common ground: Quantifying the interplay of mechanisms that promote understanding in conversations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Dideriksen ◽  
Morten H. Christiansen ◽  
Kristian Tylén ◽  
Mark Dingemanse ◽  
Riccardo Fusaroli
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Corpus Studies ◽  
Joint Decisions ◽  
Semantic Alignment ◽  
Computational Analyses ◽  
Task Oriented ◽  
And Task

Humans readily engage in idle chat, heated discussions, and negotiate tough joint decisions without ever having to think twice about the different mechanisms they use to keep the conversation grounded in mutual understanding. However, current attempts at identifying and assessing the grounding mechanisms that make this possible are fragmented across disciplines and investigate single mechanisms within single contexts. We present a comprehensive conceptual framework to investigate and quantify conversational grounding mechanisms, and how they adjust to contextual demands. In three corpus studies, we systematically test the role of three grounding mechanisms, backchannels, repair, and interactive alignment. Contrasting affiliative (AC) and task-oriented (TOC) conversations between and within participants, we find that grounding mechanisms adaptively adjust to the increased need for precision in the latter: Across Study 1 and Study 2, we show that low-precision mechanisms such as backchannels are more frequent in AC, while more costly but higher-precision mechanisms, such as specific repairs, are more frequent in TOC. Further, TOC involve higher complementarity of contributions in terms of the content and perspective: lower semantic alignment, and less frequent (but richer) lexical and syntactic alignment. Crucially, in Study 3, these variations in the use of grounding mechanisms are shown to be adaptive: pairs of interlocutors that show stronger linguistic complementarity perform better across the two tasks. By combining motivated comparisons of several conversational contexts, and theoretically informed computational analyses of empirical and experimental data, the present work lays the foundations for a comprehensive conceptual framework of grounding mechanisms in conversation.

Hearing Aid Amplification Reduces Communication Effort of People With Hearing Impairment and Their Conversation Partners

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1299-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Beechey ◽  
Jörg M. Buchholz ◽  
Gitte Keidser
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Referential Communication ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Acoustic Environment ◽  
Communication Task ◽  
Acoustic Environments ◽  
The Impact

Objectives This study investigates the hypothesis that hearing aid amplification reduces effort within conversation for both hearing aid wearers and their communication partners. Levels of effort, in the form of speech production modifications, required to maintain successful spoken communication in a range of acoustic environments are compared to earlier reported results measured in unaided conversation conditions. Design Fifteen young adult normal-hearing participants and 15 older adult hearing-impaired participants were tested in pairs. Each pair consisted of one young normal-hearing participant and one older hearing-impaired participant. Hearing-impaired participants received directional hearing aid amplification, according to their audiogram, via a master hearing aid with gain provided according to the NAL-NL2 fitting formula. Pairs of participants were required to take part in naturalistic conversations through the use of a referential communication task. Each pair took part in five conversations, each of 5-min duration. During each conversation, participants were exposed to one of five different realistic acoustic environments presented through highly open headphones. The ordering of acoustic environments across experimental blocks was pseudorandomized. Resulting recordings of conversational speech were analyzed to determine the magnitude of speech modifications, in terms of vocal level and spectrum, produced by normal-hearing talkers as a function of both acoustic environment and the degree of high-frequency average hearing impairment of their conversation partner. Results The magnitude of spectral modifications of speech produced by normal-hearing talkers during conversations with aided hearing-impaired interlocutors was smaller than the speech modifications observed during conversations between the same pairs of participants in the absence of hearing aid amplification. Conclusions The provision of hearing aid amplification reduces the effort required to maintain communication in adverse conditions. This reduction in effort provides benefit to hearing-impaired individuals and also to the conversation partners of hearing-impaired individuals. By considering the impact of amplification on both sides of dyadic conversations, this approach contributes to an increased understanding of the likely impact of hearing impairment on everyday communication.

Partner-Specific Communication Deficits in Individuals With Alzheimer's Disease

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Eun Jin Paek ◽  
Si On Yoon
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Referential Communication ◽  
Sorting Task ◽  
Audience Design ◽  
Healthy Older Adults ◽  
Communication Task ◽  
Design Skills ◽  
Referential Expressions

Purpose Speakers adjust referential expressions to the listeners' knowledge while communicating, a phenomenon called “audience design.” While individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) show difficulties in discourse production, it is unclear whether they exhibit preserved partner-specific audience design. The current study examined if individuals with AD demonstrate partner-specific audience design skills. Method Ten adults with mild-to-moderate AD and 12 healthy older adults performed a referential communication task with two experimenters (E1 and E2). At first, E1 and participants completed an image-sorting task, allowing them to establish shared labels. Then, during testing, both experimenters were present in the room, and participants described images to either E1 or E2 (randomly alternating). Analyses focused on the number of words participants used to describe each image and whether they reused shared labels. Results During testing, participants in both groups produced shorter descriptions when describing familiar images versus new images, demonstrating their ability to learn novel knowledge. When they described familiar images, healthy older adults modified their expressions depending on the current partner's knowledge, producing shorter expressions and more established labels for the knowledgeable partner (E1) versus the naïve partner (E2), but individuals with AD were less likely to do so. Conclusions The current study revealed that both individuals with AD and the control participants were able to acquire novel knowledge, but individuals with AD tended not to flexibly adjust expressions depending on the partner's knowledge state. Conversational inefficiency and difficulties observed in AD may, in part, stem from disrupted audience design skills.

Watching Birds and People

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-176
Author(s):  
Mikael Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Field Work ◽  
Personal Knowledge ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Good Working ◽  
Anthropological Field Work ◽  
Different Cultures ◽  
The Way

This article explores ornithology as a hidden resource in anthropological field work. Relating experiences among the Penan forest nomads of Sarawak, Borneo, the author describes how his personal knowledge of bird life paved the way for good working relations, and even friendship, with the Penan. Representing two very different cultures simple communication between the scholar on duty and the Penan community was difficult indeed, but the birds provided a common ground that enabled the two parties to exchange experiences, knowledge and skills. In certain ways the author's fieldwork-based project relates to the Penan’s religious interpretation of birds, but the article is primarily concerned with the fact that a mutual understanding was created from this common ground, and that our thoughts on fieldwork preparations may be taken further by such experiences.

Does context matter? Effects of robot appearance and reliability on social attention differs based on lifelikeness of gaze task

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulaziz Abubshait ◽  
Patrick P. Weis ◽  
Eva Wiese
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Social Cognitive ◽  
Physical Appearance ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Social Attention ◽  
Social Cues ◽  
Social Signals ◽  
Mind Perception ◽  
The Social ◽  
Behavioral Features

Social signals, such as changes in gaze direction, are essential cues to predict others’ mental states and behaviors (i.e., mentalizing). Studies show that humans can mentalize with non-human agents when they perceive a mind in them (i.e., mind perception). Robots that physically and/or behaviorally resemble humans likely trigger mind perception, which enhances the relevance of social cues and improves social-cognitive performance. The current ex-periments examine whether the effect of physical and behavioral influencers of mind perception on social-cognitive processing is modulated by the lifelikeness of a social interaction. Participants interacted with robots of varying degrees of physical (humanlike vs. robot-like) and behavioral (reliable vs. random) human-likeness while the lifelikeness of a social attention task was manipulated across five experiments. The first four experiments manipulated lifelikeness via the physical realism of the robot images (Study 1 and 2), the biological plausibility of the social signals (Study 3), and the plausibility of the social con-text (Study 4). They showed that humanlike behavior affected social attention whereas appearance affected mind perception ratings. However, when the lifelikeness of the interaction was increased by using videos of a human and a robot sending the social cues in a realistic environment (Study 5), social attention mechanisms were affected both by physical appearance and behavioral features, while mind perception ratings were mainly affected by physical appearance. This indicates that in order to understand the effect of physical and behavioral features on social cognition, paradigms should be used that adequately simulate the lifelikeness of social interactions.

scholarly journals The pervasive role of pragmatics in early language

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Bohn ◽  
Michael C. Frank
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Social Cues ◽  
Social Reasoning ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Computational Framework ◽  
Linguistic Pragmatics ◽  
Developmental Continuity ◽  
Pragmatic Reasoning

Language is a fundamentally social endeavor. Pragmatics is the study of how speakers and listeners use social reasoning to go beyond the literal meanings of words to interpret language in context. In this review, we take a pragmatic perspective on language development and argue for developmental continuity between early non-verbal communication, language learning, and linguistic pragmatics. We link phenomena from these different literatures by relating them to a computational framework (the rational speech act framework), which conceptualizes communication as fundamentally inferential and grounded in social cognition. The model specifies how different information sources (linguistic utterances, social cues, common ground) are combined when making pragmatic inferences. We present evidence in favor of this inferential view and review how pragmatic reasoning supports children’s learning, comprehension, and use of language.

Solidarity and Rapport in Social Interaction

2011 ◽  
pp. 934-946
Author(s):  
Jung-ran Park
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Interpersonal Relationships ◽  
Social Distance ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Online Chat ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
The Social

This chapter examines the way online language users enhance social interaction and group collaboration through the computer mediated communication (CMC) channel. For this, discourse analysis based on the linguistic politeness theoretical framework is applied to the transcripts of a real time online chat. Analysis of the data shows that online participants employ a variety of creative devices to signal nonverbal communication cues that serve to build interpersonal solidarity and rapport, as well as by seeking common ground and by expressing agreement online participants increase mutual understanding and harmonious social interaction. This sets the tone of positive interpersonal relationships and decreases the social distance among participants. In turn, this engenders solidarity and proximity, which enhances social interaction through the CMC channel.

scholarly journals The Pervasive Role of Pragmatics in Early Language

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Bohn ◽  
Michael C. Frank
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Social Cues ◽  
Social Reasoning ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Computational Framework ◽  
Linguistic Pragmatics ◽  
Developmental Continuity ◽  
Pragmatic Reasoning

Language is a fundamentally social endeavor. Pragmatics is the study of how speakers and listeners use social reasoning to go beyond the literal meanings of words to interpret language in context. In this article, we take a pragmatic perspective on language development and argue for developmental continuity between early nonverbal communication, language learning, and linguistic pragmatics. We link phenomena from these different literatures by relating them to a computational framework (the rational speech act framework), which conceptualizes communication as fundamentally inferential and grounded in social cognition. The model specifies how different information sources (linguistic utterances, social cues, common ground) are combined when making pragmatic inferences. We present evidence in favor of this inferential view and review how pragmatic reasoning supports children's learning, comprehension, and use of language.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document