Cited by 14Social Robot Interaction and HRISpeech and dialogue systemsLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

Grounding behaviours with conversational interfaces: effects of embodiment and failures

Open access
Kontogiorgos, Dimosthenis, Pereira, Andre, Gustafson, Joakim·2021·Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1007/s12193-021-00366-y

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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