Generation and evaluation of user tailored responses in multimodal dialogue
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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].”
From The Personalization of Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [21]
Cites
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994) · Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '94 · doi:10.1145/259963.260288 · Cited by 579 · see citing works
Multimodal integration-a statistical view
Wu, L., Oviatt, S. L., & Cohen, P. R. (1999) · IEEE Transactions on Multimedia · doi:10.1109/6046.807953 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Personalization of Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review
Kocaballi, A. B., Berkovsky, S., Quiroz, J. C., Laranjo, L., Tong, H. L., Rezazadegan, D., Briatore, A., & Coiera, E. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/15360 · Cited by 332 · see citing works
“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].”
BackgroundReducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems
Wolters, M., Georgila, K., Moore, J. D., Logie, R. H., MacPherson, S. E., & Watson, M. (2009) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2009.05.009 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationA Strategy for Information Presentation in Spoken Dialog Systems
Demberg, V., Winterboer, A., & Moore, J. D. (2011) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00064 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationRefocusing on Relevance: Personalization in NLG
Dudy, S., Bedrick, S., & Webber, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.421 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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