Cited by 125Speech and dialogue systemsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Generation and evaluation of user tailored responses in multimodal dialogue

Open access
Walker, M.A., Whittaker, S.J., Stent, A., Maloor, P., Moore, J., Johnston, M., Vasireddy, G.·2004·Cognitive Science

Abstract

Abstract When people engage in conversation, they tailor their utterances to their conversational partners, whether these partners are other humans or computational systems. This tailoring, or adaptation to the partner takes place in all facets of human language use, and is based on a mental model or a user model of the conversational partner. Such adaptation has been shown to improve listeners' comprehension, their satisfaction with an interactive system, the efficiency with which they execute conversational tasks, and the likelihood of achieving higher level goals such as changing the listener's beliefs and attitudes. We focus on one aspect of adaptation, namely the tailoring of the content of dialogue system utterances for the higher level processes of persuasion, argumentation and advice‐giving. Our hypothesis is that algorithms that adapt content for these processes, according to a user model, will improve the usability, efficiency, and effectiveness of dialogue systems. We describe a multimodal dialogue system and algorithms for adaptive content selection based on multi‐attribute decision theory. We demonstrate experimentally the improved efficacy of system responses through the use of user models to both tailor the content of system utterances and to manipulate their conciseness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15516709cog2805_8

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • The effects of personalization have been evaluated by measuring efficiency, user satisfaction, relevance, understandability, information quality, and appropriateness of system responses.

    “The effects of personalization have been evaluated in various ways by measuring aspects like efficiency in terms of the number and duration of interactions [11,20], user satisfaction, relevance, and understandability [20], information quality presented [21], and appropriateness of system responses [10].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walker, M. A., Whittaker, S. J., Stent, A., Maloor, P., Moore, J., Johnston, M., & Vasireddy, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • AT&T (United States) (US)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Walker, M.A.
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-09
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
811-840
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
OpenAlex
W2163600070
Cited by
125
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
multimodal dialogue systems, user modeling, persuasion, argumentation, advice-giving

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