Grounding behaviours with conversational interfaces: effects of embodiment and failures
Open accessAbstract
Conversational 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is some evidence suggesting that when agents provide feedback, users also expect their own feedback to be understood by the agent.
“There is some evidence suggesting that when agents provide feedback, users also expect their own feedback to be understood by the agent (Sidner et al., 2006; Kontogiorgos et al., 2021; Laban et al., 2021).”
From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Kontogiorgos et al., 2021
Cites
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496 · see citing works
Harnad, S. (1990) · Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena · doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 · Cited by 4,235 · see citing works
Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios
Robinette, P., Li, W., Allen, R., Howard, A. M., & Wagner, A. R. (2016) · 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1109/hri.2016.7451740 · Cited by 468 · see citing works
Honig, S., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00861 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction
Kidd, C. D., & Breazeal, C. (2008) · 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems · doi:10.1109/iros.2008.4651113 · Cited by 332 · see citing works
The effect of presence on human-robot interaction
Bainbridge, W. A., Hart, J., Kim, E. S., & Scassellati, B. (2008) · RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication · doi:10.1109/roman.2008.4600749 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
MOON, Y., & NASS, C. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023006002 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Giuliani, M., Mirnig, N., Stollnberger, G., Stadler, S., Buchner, R., & Tscheligi, M. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00931 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Improving social presence in human-agent interaction
Pereira, A., Prada, R., & Paiva, A. (2014) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557180 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review
Axelsson, A., Buschmeier, H., & Skantze, G. (2022) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2022.744574 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Multimodal User Feedback During Adaptive Robot-Human Presentations
Axelsson, A., & Skantze, G. (2022) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2021.741148 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kontogiorgos, D., Pereira, A., & Gustafson, J.
- Affiliations
- KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Kontogiorgos, Dimosthenis
- Venue
- Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces
- Published
- 2021-03-24
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 239-254
- ISSN
- 1783-7677 (ISSN-L)
- 1783-8738
- OpenAlex
- W3138480152
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- SSF (GMT14-0082)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- common ground, conversational interfaces, embodiment, anthropomorphism, task-oriented dialogue, referential communication, nonverbal cues, social signals, human-agent interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review