The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 156 of the 175 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The State of Speech in HCI: Trends, Themes and Challenges
Open accessAbstract
Speech interfaces are growing in popularity. Through a review of 99 research papers this work maps the trends, themes, findings and methods of empirical research on speech interfaces in the field of human–computer interaction (HCI). We find that studies are usability/theory-focused or explore wider system experiences, evaluating Wizard of Oz, prototypes or developed systems. Measuring task and interaction was common, as was using self-report questionnaires to measure concepts like usability and user attitudes. A thematic analysis of the research found that speech HCI work focuses on nine key topics: system speech production, design insight, modality comparison, experiences with interactive voice response systems, assistive technology and accessibility, user speech production, using speech technology for development, peoples’ experiences with intelligent personal assistants and how user memory affects speech interface interaction. From these insights we identify gaps and challenges in speech research, notably taking into account technological advancements, the need to develop theories of speech interface interaction, grow critical mass in this domain, increase design work and expand research from single to multiple user interaction contexts so as to reflect current use contexts. We also highlight the need to improve measure reliability, validity and consistency, in the wild deployment and reduce barriers to building fully functional speech interfaces for research.RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Most papers focused on usability/theory-based or wider system experience research with a focus on Wizard of Oz and developed systems Questionnaires on usability and user attitudes often used but few were reliable or validated Thematic analysis showed nine primary research topics Challenges identified in theoretical approaches and design guidelines, engaging with technological advances, multiple user and in the wild contexts, critical research mass and barriers to building speech interfaces
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“As extensively noted in VUI literature, VUIs are not “conversational” in nature [24,25,31,36,45,83].”
From OK Google, Let's Learn: Using Voice User Interfaces for Informal Self-Regulated Learning of Health Topics among Younger and Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Centred on the main dialogue actor in the breakdown-repairing process, research in repair strategies has been broadly divided into two areas: investigations into system-repair strategies and studies on user-repair strategies [10, 16].”
From System and User Strategies to Repair Conversational Breakdowns of Spoken Dialogue Systems: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · cited 2×
“Inductive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was conducted on the final search results to categorize the research themes discussed in each publication.”
Designing the user interface strategies for effective human-computer interaction
Shneiderman, B. (1998) · SIGB · doi:10.1145/25065.950626 · Cited by 4,680
Listen, attend and spell: A neural network for large vocabulary conversational speech recognition
Chan, W., Jaitly, N., Le, Q., & Vinyals, O. (2016) · 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) · doi:10.1109/icassp.2016.7472621 · Cited by 2,226
Talking about tactile experiences
Obrist, M., Seah, S. A., & Subramanian, S. (2013) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2466220 · Cited by 1,634
Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.22.6.1482 · Cited by 1,529 · cited 2×
“A key debate around the role of partner models seems to be emerging in HCI based publications, which reflects debates on language production more generally (Brennan & Clark, 1996; Horton & Keysar, 1996; Keysar, Barr, & Horton, 1998).”
BackgroundBødker, S., Dindler, C., Iversen, O. S., & Smith, R. C. (2017) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203744338 · Cited by 1,517 · cited 1×
“Approaches commonly used in interaction design research such as cultural probes (DeHaemer & Wallace, 1992), contextual inquiry (Holtzblatt & Jones, 1993), and participatory design more generally (Schuler & Namioka, 1993) tended not to be used in the research we reviewed.”
MethodEmotion and sociable humanoid robots
Breazeal, C. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00018-1 · Cited by 1,279 · cited 1×
“This was to avoid studies where speech is confounded by issues of embodiment, such as gesture and emotive facial expressions (Breazeal, 2003), that can affect users’ interactions and experiences (Bruce, Nourbakhsh, & Simmons, 2002; Kuno et al., 2007).”
BackgroundLuger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858288 · Cited by 1,176 · cited 5×
“Our review indicates that there has been some recent progress towards this (e.g. Luger & Sellen, 2016; Porcheron et al., 2017; Cowan et al., 2017).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialCurrent practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research
Hornbæk, K. (2006) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002 · Cited by 1,123
Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., & Ahrenberg, L. (1993) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/169891.169968 · Cited by 784 · cited 1×
“In WoZ studies participants are led to believe they are interacting with a system, however, a (usually unseen) confederate controls the system’s output (Dahlbäck, Jönsson, & Ahrenberg, 1993).”
BackgroundWhen do speakers take into account common ground?
Horton, W., & Keysar, B. (1996) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 · Cited by 668 · cited 1×
“A key debate around the role of partner models seems to be emerging in HCI based publications, which reflects debates on language production more generally (Brennan & Clark, 1996; Horton & Keysar, 1996; Keysar, Barr, & Horton, 1998).”
BackgroundBargas-Avila, J. A., & Hornbæk, K. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979336 · Cited by 660 · cited 1×
“Papers were selected using adapted PRISMA guidelines, similar to the adapted QUORUM procedures in previous reviews (Bargas-Avila & Hornbæk, 2011; Mekler, Bopp, Tuch, & Opwis, 2014).”
MethodMcTear, M., Callejas, Z., & Griol, D. (2016) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32967-3 · Cited by 594
Direct manipulation vs. interface agents
Shneiderman, B., & Maes, P. (1997) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/267505.267514 · Cited by 518 · cited 1×
“…(e.g. Aylett et al., 2015; Cowan et al., 2016), debates or panel discussions (e.g. Cohen et al., 2016) workshop papers (e.g. Munteanu et al., 2017) and magazine articles, for instance those from Communications of the ACM (e.g. Shneiderman, 2000) or ACM Interactions (e.g. Shneiderman & Maes, 1997).”
BackgroundWhat Makes a Good Conversation?: Challenges in Designing Truly Conversational Agents
Clark, L., Pantidi, N., Cooney, O., Doyle, P., Garaialde, D., Edwards, J., Spillane, B., Gilmartin, E., Murad, C., Munteanu, C., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300705 · Cited by 461
Self-citationTowards a tool for the Subjective Assessment of Speech System Interfaces (SASSI)
Hone, K., & Graham, R. (2000) · Natural Language Engineering · doi:10.1017/s1351324900002497 · Cited by 355 · cited 3×
“We were surprised to see that, although SASSI was deployed once in the reviewed papers (Hofmann et al., 2014), the scale has rarely been used in HCI publications.”
BackgroundLindgaard, G., Dudek, C., Sen, D., Sumegi, L., & Noonan, P. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1959022.1959023 · Cited by 353
"What can i help you with?": infrequent users' experiences of intelligent personal assistants
Cowan, B. R., Pantidi, N., Coyle, D., Morrissey, K., Clarke, P., Al-Shehri, S., Earley, D., & Bandeira, N. (2017) · Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services · doi:10.1145/3098279.3098539 · Cited by 351 · cited 7×
“Our review indicates that there has been some recent progress towards this (e.g. Luger & Sellen, 2016; Porcheron et al., 2017; Cowan et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThe role of expressiveness and attention in human-robot interaction
Bruce, A., Nourbakhsh, I., & Simmons, R. (2002) · Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292) · doi:10.1109/robot.2002.1014396 · Cited by 336
Taking the time to care: empowering low health literacy hospital patients with virtual nurse agents
Bickmore, T. W., Pfeifer, L. M., & Jack, B. W. (2009) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518891 · Cited by 289
Designing mobile interfaces for novice and low-literacy users
Medhi, I., Patnaik, S., Brunskill, E., Gautama, S. N. N., Thies, W., & Toyama, K. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1959022.1959024 · Cited by 285 · cited 1×
“Similarly, Medhi et al. (2011) compare a text-based interface with a live operator for patients discussing symptoms with health workers over the phone, observing that the live operator was up to ten times more accurate than the text-based interface.”
BackgroundWhen do we interact multimodally?: cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns
Oviatt, S., Coulston, R., & Lunsford, R. (2004) · Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Multimodal interfaces · doi:10.1145/1027933.1027957 · Cited by 285 · cited 1×
“When speech and pen inputs were available, a shift to multimodal communication was observed when cognitive load increased (Oviatt, Coulston, & Lunsford, 2004).”
BackgroundThe limits of speech recognition
Shneiderman, B. (2000) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/348941.348990 · Cited by 279 · cited 2×
“…(e.g. Aylett et al., 2015; Cowan et al., 2016), debates or panel discussions (e.g. Cohen et al., 2016) workshop papers (e.g. Munteanu et al., 2017) and magazine articles, for instance those from Communications of the ACM (e.g. Shneiderman, 2000) or ACM Interactions (e.g. Shneiderman & Maes, 1997).”
BackgroundMethodThe Egocentric Basis of Language Use
Keysar, B., Barr, D., & Horton, W. (1998) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175613 · Cited by 258 · cited 1×
“A key debate around the role of partner models seems to be emerging in HCI based publications, which reflects debates on language production more generally (Brennan & Clark, 1996; Horton & Keysar, 1996; Keysar, Barr, & Horton, 1998).”
BackgroundDesigning social presence of social actors in human computer interaction
Lee, K. M., & Nass, C. (2003) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/642611.642662 · Cited by 257 · cited 2×
“Our review highlights that speech interface work has been successful in producing theories and effects that have been widely adopted by the field (e.g. the similarity-attraction effect (Dahlbäck et al., 2007; Nass & Lee, 2000); consistency-attraction (Lee & Nass, 2003)).”
BackgroundDesigning SpeechActs: issues in speech user interfaces
Yankelovich, N., Levow, G.-A., & Marx, M. (1995) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '95 · doi:10.1145/223904.223952 · Cited by 250 · cited 4×
“We found few design papers in the ones reviewed (e.g. Corbett & Weber, 2016; Yankelovich et al., 1995).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe role of beliefs in lexical alignment: evidence from dialogs with humans and computers.
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., Pearson, J., McLean, J., & Brown, A. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.011 · Cited by 250 · cited 2×
“However, there are a number of studies published in other fields that are relevant to speech HCI work, including cognitive psychology, ergonomics, linguistics, and speech technology (e.g. Branigan et al., 2011; Large et al., 2017; Cowan & Branigan, 2015; Mendelson & Aylett, 2017).”
BackgroundDoes computer-generated speech manifest personality? an experimental test of similarity-attraction
Nass, C., & Lee, K. M. (2000) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/332040.332452 · Cited by 242 · cited 3×
“Our review highlights that speech interface work has been successful in producing theories and effects that have been widely adopted by the field (e.g. the similarity-attraction effect (Dahlbäck et al., 2007; Nass & Lee, 2000); consistency-attraction (Lee & Nass, 2003)).”
BackgroundInfluentialA systematic review of quantitative studies on the enjoyment of digital entertainment games
Mekler, E. D., Bopp, J. A., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2014) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557078 · Cited by 211 · cited 1×
“Following Mekler et al. (2014) we extracted the research aims, interaction type being researched, methodologies, and results from each paper.”
MethodContextual Inquiry: A Participatory Technique for System Design
Karen, H., & Sandra, J. (2017) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203744338-9 · Cited by 204
Multimodal error correction for speech user interfaces
Suhm, B., Myers, B., & Waibel, A. (2001) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/371127.371166 · Cited by 198 · cited 1×
“Suhm et al. (2001) examined error correction for speech interfaces, finding a preference for multimodal correction.”
BackgroundA comparison of mobile money-transfer UIs for non-literate and semi-literate users
Medhi, I., Gautama, S. N. N., & Toyama, K. (2009) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518970 · Cited by 185 · cited 2×
“They also provide example benefits and drawbacks of speech interface design and use with these communities (e.g. Medhi et al., 2009; Raza et al., 2013).”
BackgroundDesigning and Evaluating an Adaptive Spoken Dialogue System
Litman, D., & Pan, S.-M. (2002) · User modeling and user-adapted interaction · doi:10.1023/a:1015036910358 · Cited by 176 · cited 1×
“Litman & Pan (2002) evaluated an online train schedule retrieval system accessed via telephone, revealing performance improvements when the system predicts ASR problems and adapts to more conservative dialogue strategies.”
BackgroundCorbett, E., & Weber, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services · doi:10.1145/2935334.2935386 · Cited by 148 · cited 6×
“One of the papers assessed a speech interface with a smartphone (Corbett & Weber, 2016), finding that existing approaches in voice interaction design do not necessarily translate into mobile interaction spaces.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLi, J., & Paisey, A. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/322695b0 · Cited by 136
A taxonomy of quality of service and Quality of Experience of multimodal human-machine interaction
Moller, S., Engelbrecht, K.-P., Kühnel, C., Wechsung, I., & Weiss, B. (2009) · International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience · doi:10.1109/qomex.2009.5246986 · Cited by 136
Museum guide robot based on sociological interaction analysis
Kuno, Y., Sadazuka, K., Kawashima, M., Yamazaki, K., Yamazaki, A., & Kuzuoka, H. (2007) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240804 · Cited by 135
(2017) · doi:10.1145/2998181.2998298 · Cited by 131
User Representations of Computer Systems in Human-Computer Speech Interaction
Amalberti, R., Carbonell, N., & Falzon, P. (1993) · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. · doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1026 · Cited by 116 · cited 3×
“…is driven by the assumptions users have of partner abilities (i.e. our partner models) and that they adapt speech choices accordingly (e.g. Amalberti et al., 1993), similar to mechanisms proposed in human-human communication (Branigan, Pickering, Pearson, McLean, & Brown, 2011; Brennan &…”
BackgroundCowan, B. R., Branigan, H., Obregón, M., Bugis, E., & Beale, R. (2015) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.008 · Cited by 110 · cited 7×
“Examples included assessing language production when interacting with mocked up speech interfaces (e.g. Amalberti, Carbonell, & Falzon, 1993; Cowan et al., 2015), interactions with existing commercially available IPAs (e.g. Luger & Sellen, 2016; Porcheron et al., 2017) and telephone-based IVR…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGestures with Speech for Graphic Manipulation
Hauptmann, A., & McAvinney, P. (1993) · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. · doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1011 · Cited by 110 · cited 2×
“Finally, in comparing speech with gesture , as well as with a combination of the two, no significant differences were found when using them to manipulate graphical objects (Hauptmann & McAvinney, 1993), although user preferences were observed for speech and gesture combined.”
BackgroundProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(2016) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036 · Cited by 109
Jokinen, K., & McTear, M. (2010) · Synthesis lectures on human language technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02134-3 · Cited by 106 · cited 1×
“A natural language generation (NLG) component then generates a natural response, which is outputted by the system as artificial speech using text-to-speech synthesis (TTS) (Jokinen & MacTear, 2010; Lison & Kennington, 2016).”
BackgroundWhat can I say?: evaluating a spoken language interface to Email
Walker, M., Fromer, J. C., Fabbrizio, G. D., Mestel, C., & Hindle, D. (1998) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/274644.274722 · Cited by 96 · cited 1×
“Walker et al. (1998) had a somewhat similar focus with a spoken language interface for email.”
BackgroundBrown, P., Levinson, S., & Gumperz, J. (2021) · Cross-Cultural Pragmatics · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813085 · Cited by 87
OpenDial: A Toolkit for Developing Spoken Dialogue Systems with Probabilistic Rules
Lison, P., & Kennington, C. (2016) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-4012 · Cited by 85 · cited 2×
“A natural language generation (NLG) component then generates a natural response, which is outputted by the system as artificial speech using text-to-speech synthesis (TTS) (Jokinen & MacTear, 2010; Lison & Kennington, 2016).”
BackgroundSupporting medical conversations between deaf and hearing individuals with tabletop displays
Piper, A. M., & Hollan, J. (2008) · Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/1460563.1460587 · Cited by 84 · cited 4×
“…approaches were adopted in exploring speech interface systems for users with other specific accessibility requirements (e.g. Harada et al., 2009; Piper & Hollan, 2008), healthcare workers (Lai & Vergo, 1997; Sammon et al., 2006) and identifying more general challenges towards designing an…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialJob opportunities through entertainment: virally spread speech-based services for low-literate users
Raza, A. A., Haq, F. U., Tariq, Z., Pervaiz, M., Razaq, S., Saif, U., & Rosenfeld, R. (2013) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2481389 · Cited by 81 · cited 2×
“Raza et al. (2013) had a somewhat different approach, and explored the challenges of virally spreading awareness of, and training people in, speech-based services for users in communities with low levels of literacy.”
BackgroundDesign guidelines for hands-free speech interaction
Murad, C., Munteanu, C., Clark, L., & Cowan, B. R. (2018) · Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct · doi:10.1145/3236112.3236149 · Cited by 79
Self-citationMedSpeak: report creation with continuous speech recognition
Lai, J., & Vergo, J. (1997) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/258549.258829 · Cited by 77 · cited 2×
“…interface systems for users with other specific accessibility requirements (e.g. Harada et al., 2009; Piper & Hollan, 2008), healthcare workers (Lai & Vergo, 1997; Sammon et al., 2006) and identifying more general challenges towards designing an experimental system (Yankelovich et al., 1995).”
BackgroundStrait, M., Vujovic, L., Floerke, V. A., Scheutz, M., & Urry, H. (2015) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702415 · Cited by 74
Hands-Free, Speech-Based Navigation During Dictation: Difficulties, Consequences, and Solutions
Sears, A., Feng, J.-J., Oseitutu, K., & Karat, C.-M. (2003) · Hum. Comput. Interact. · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1803_2 · Cited by 72
Supporting Community Health Workers in India through Voice- and Web-Based Feedback
DeRenzi, B., Dell, N., Wacksman, J., Lee, S., & Lesh, N. (2017) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025514 · Cited by 68
Similarity is more important than expertise: accent effects in speech interfaces
Dahlbäck, N., Wang, Q., Nass, C., & Alwin, J. (2007) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240859 · Cited by 68 · cited 3×
“Our review highlights that speech interface work has been successful in producing theories and effects that have been widely adopted by the field (e.g. the similarity-attraction effect (Dahlbäck et al., 2007; Nass & Lee, 2000); consistency-attraction (Lee & Nass, 2003)).”
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 66 · cited 4×
“33.3% (N=24) of systems explored telephone-based dialogues as an interaction, for example in healthcare appointment booking (Wolters et al., 2009) and telephone banking systems (e.g. Wilkie, Jack, & Littlewood, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLarge, D. R., Clark, L., Quandt, A., Burnett, G., & Skrypchuk, L. (2017) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.04.003 · Cited by 65
Self-citationEmpirical Evidence for a Diminished Sense of Agency in Speech Interfaces
Limerick, H., Moore, J., & Coyle, D. (2015) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702379 · Cited by 62 · cited 4×
“These included corpus data (Derriks & Willems, 1998), focus groups (Cowan et al., 2017), user modelling (Schaffer et al., 2015), perceived sense of agency (Limerick et al., 2015) and physiological data (Kallinen & Ravaja, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialNone of a CHInd: relationship counselling for HCI and speech technology
Aylett, M., Kristensson, P., Whittaker, S., & Vazquez-Alvarez, Y. (2014) · CHI Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/2559206.2578868 · Cited by 61
Self-citationRespeak: A Voice-based, Crowd-powered Speech Transcription System
Vashistha, A., Sethi, P., & Anderson, R. J. (2017) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025640 · Cited by 60
Takayama, L., & Nass, C. (2008) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.06.005 · Cited by 60
Gong, L., & Lai, J. (2001) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/365024.365090 · Cited by 60 · cited 1×
“Gong & Lai (2001) compared users’ task performance and perceptions when interacting with only synthesised speech or a combination of synthesised and human speech in a virtual assistant interface.”
BackgroundSonification of guidance data during road crossing for people with visual impairments or blindness
Mascetti, S., Picinali, L., Gerino, A., Ahmetovic, D., & Bernareggi, C. (2016) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.08.003 · Cited by 57
Jeon, M., Gable, T. M., Davison, B. K., Nees, M. A., Wilson, J., & Walker, B. (2015) · International journal of human computer interactions · doi:10.1080/10447318.2014.925774 · Cited by 56
Fickas, S., Sohlberg, M., & Hung, P.-F. (2008) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.07.006 · Cited by 56
A comparative study of speech in the call center: natural language call routing vs. touch-tone menus
Suhm, B., Bers, J., McCarthy, D., Freeman, B., Getty, D., Godfrey, K., & Peterson, P. (2002) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/503376.503427 · Cited by 56
Responding to subtle, fleeting changes in the user's internal state
Tsukahara, W., & Ward, N. G. (2001) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/365024.365047 · Cited by 54 · cited 1×
“Finally, one content-focused paper assessed evaluations of a spoken dialogue system designed to tailor its use of acknowledgements in accordance with the perceived ‘ephemeral emotions’ of its user (Tsukahara & Ward, 2001).”
BackgroundFeng, J.-J., & Sears, A. (2004) · TCHI · doi:10.1145/1035575.1035576 · Cited by 53
Designing speech and language interactions
Munteanu, C., Jones, M., Whittaker, S., Oviatt, S., Aylett, M., Penn, G., Brewster, S., & D'Alessandro, N. (2014) · CHI Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/2559206.2559228 · Cited by 49
Self-citationLongitudinal study of people learning to use continuous voice-based cursor control
Harada, S., Wobbrock, J. O., Malkin, J., Bilmes, J., & Landay, J. A. (2009) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518757 · Cited by 48 · cited 3×
“…68 publications on user interactions with speech as either a system output (e.g. Alm, Todman, Elder, & Newell, 1993), user input (e.g. Harada, Wobbrock, Malkin, Bilmes, & Landay, 2009) or in a dialogue context (e.g. Cowan, Branigan, Obregón, Bugis, & Beale, 2015; Porcheron, Fischer, &…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAutomated telephone answering systems and aging
Dulude, L. (2002) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929021000013482 · Cited by 48 · cited 1×
“Another paper focused on aging and its effects on IVR experiences (Dulude, 2002).”
BackgroundBegany, G. M., Sa, N., & Yuan, X. (2015) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwv029 · Cited by 45 · cited 2×
“Two papers report a negative impact of using speech, with speech reducing ease of system use (Begany et al., 2015), and a user’s sense of agency (Limerick et al., 2015) compared to more traditional input modalities such as keyboard and mouse.”
BackgroundOn the Future of Personal Assistants
Cohen, P., Cheyer, A., Horvitz, E., Kaliouby, R. E., & Whittaker, S. (2016) · CHI Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/2851581.2886425 · Cited by 45 · cited 2×
“We excluded works in progress and extended abstracts (e.g. Aylett et al., 2015; Cowan et al., 2016), debates or panel discussions (e.g. Cohen et al., 2016) workshop papers (e.g. Munteanu et al., 2017) and magazine articles, for instance those from Communications of the ACM (e.g. Shneiderman, 2000)…”
BackgroundDesigning habitable dialogues for speech-based interaction with computers
Hone, K., & Baber, C. (2001) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1006/ijhc.2000.0456 · Cited by 44
Using speech and dialogue for interactive TV navigation
Berglund, A., & Johansson, P. (2004) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-004-0106-x · Cited by 42
Voice typing: a new speech interaction model for dictation on touchscreen devices
Kumar, A., Paek, T., & Lee, B. (2012) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2208386 · Cited by 40
Hang on a sec!: effects of proactive mediation of phone conversations while driving
Iqbal, S. T., Horvitz, E., Ju, Y., & Mathews, E. (2011) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979008 · Cited by 40 · cited 3×
“…(Section 5.2) explores four distinct sub-topics; speech synthesis (e.g. Nass & Lee, 2000), content (e.g. Hoffmann et al., 2014), temporal aspects (e.g. Iqbal et al., 2011), and general speech production (Clark et al., 2016), with each study varying in the concepts explored within those sub-topics.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe role of spatial abilities and age in performance in an auditory computer navigation task
Pak, R., Czaja, S., Sharit, J., Rogers, W., & Fisk, A. (2008) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.010 · Cited by 40 · cited 1×
“Finally, Pak et al. (2008) also examined auditory computer interfaces, though instead of assessing a prototype system as such, looked at the impact of age-related differences in spatial ability.”
BackgroundZhai, S.-M. (2014) · TCHI · doi:10.1145/2568193 · Cited by 36
A comparative study of speech and dialed input voice interfaces in rural India
Patel, N., Agarwal, S. K., Rajput, N., Nanavati, A., Dave, P., & Parikh, T. S. (2009) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518709 · Cited by 36 · cited 2×
“Task performance measures like the total number of turns (Le Bigot et al., 2007) percentage of tasks completed correctly (Oviatt et al., 2008) and task completion time (Patel et al., 2009) were also commonly used.”
BackgroundMethodThe impact of voice characteristics on user response in an interactive voice response system
Evans, R. E., & Kortum, P. (2010) · Interacting with computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.001 · Cited by 34 · cited 3×
“Perceived usability measures concentrated on quantifying concepts like perceived ease of use and learnability (e.g. Evans & Kortum, 2010), through Likert scale questionnaires.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEffect of modality on collaboration with a dialogue system
Bigot, L. L., Terrier, P., Amiel, V., Poulain, G., Jamet, E., & Rouet, J. (2007) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.07.002 · Cited by 34 · cited 2×
“Task performance measures like the total number of turns (Le Bigot et al., 2007) percentage of tasks completed correctly (Oviatt et al., 2008) and task completion time (Patel et al., 2009) were also commonly used.”
BackgroundMethodA study of out-of-turn interaction in menu-based, IVR, voicemail systems
Perugini, S., Anderson, T. J., & Moroney, W. (2007) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240770 · Cited by 33
Molnar, K., & Kletke, M. G. (1996) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0053 · Cited by 32
Hajukone: Developing an Open Source Olfactory Device
McGookin, D., & Escobar, D. (2016) · CHI Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/2851581.2892339 · Cited by 31
Effect of Machine Translation in Interlingual Conversation: Lessons from a Formative Study
Hara, K., & Iqbal, S. T. (2015) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702407 · Cited by 31 · cited 1×
“Another paper explored the impact of spoken translation software on cross-lingual dialogues (Hara & Iqbal, 2015).”
BackgroundTeam reactions to voiced agent instructions in a pervasive game
Moran, S., Pantidi, N., Bachour, K., Fischer, J., Flintham, M., Rodden, T., Evans, S., & Johnson, S. (2013) · International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/2449396.2449445 · Cited by 30
A Multimodal In-Car Dialogue System That Tracks The Driver's Attention
Kousidis, S., Kennington, C., Baumann, T., Buschmeier, H., Kopp, S., & Schlangen, D. (2014) · International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/2663204.2663244 · Cited by 29 · cited 1×
“Kousidis et al. (2014) also investigated dialogue systems in driving simulation tasks, when testing a situationally aware system that refrained from interruptions when higher driver attention was required.”
BackgroundEvaluating Perceptually Complementary Views for Network Exploration Tasks
Chang, C., Bach, B., Dwyer, T., & Marriott, K. (2017) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3026024 · Cited by 28
To talk or not to talk with a computer
Batliner, A., Hacker, C., & Nöth, E. (2008) · Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces · doi:10.1007/s12193-009-0016-6 · Cited by 28 · cited 1×
“The technical challenges in terms of recognizing who is speaking (speaker diarization) and whether they are addressing the system are well researched (Batliner, Hacker, & Nöth, 2008).”
Background"You Talking to Me?" Exploring Voice in Self-Service User Interfaces
Johnson, G., & Coventry, L. (2001) · International journal of human computer interactions · doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1302_5 · Cited by 28
Beyond the Listening Test: An Interactive Approach to TTS Evaluation
Mendelson, J., & Aylett, M. (2017) · Interspeech · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2017-1438 · Cited by 27 · cited 1×
“However, there are a number of studies published in other fields that are relevant to speech HCI work, including cognitive psychology, ergonomics, linguistics, and speech technology (e.g. Branigan et al., 2011; Large et al., 2017; Cowan & Branigan, 2015; Mendelson & Aylett, 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationImplicit user-adaptive system engagement in speech and pen interfaces
Oviatt, S., Swindells, C., & Arthur, A. M. (2008) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357204 · Cited by 27 · cited 5×
“Across the papers in our review, there was a range of objective and subjective concepts being measured, including task performance (e.g. Oviatt et al., 2008), production of lexis and syntax (e.g. Cowan et al., 2015), system usage (e.g. Schaffer et al., 2015), and user recall (e.g. Knutsen et al.,…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSears, A., Lin, M., & Karimullah, A. S. (2002) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-002-0034-6 · Cited by 26
Designing Speech, Acoustic and Multimodal Interactions
Munteanu, C., Irani, P., Oviatt, S., Aylett, M., Penn, G., Pan, S.-M., Sharma, N., Rudzicz, F., Gomez, R., Cowan, B. R., et al. (2017) · CHI Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/3027063.3027086 · Cited by 24 · cited 4×
“…and extended abstracts (e.g. Aylett et al., 2015; Cowan et al., 2016), debates or panel discussions (e.g. Cohen et al., 2016) workshop papers (e.g. Munteanu et al., 2017) and magazine articles, for instance those from Communications of the ACM (e.g. Shneiderman, 2000) or ACM Interactions (e.g.…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationSpeech-based interaction: myths, challenges, and opportunities
Munteanu, C., & Penn, G. (2014) · International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services · doi:10.1145/2628363.2645671 · Cited by 24 · cited 1×
“While interest in speech interfaces has been growing steadily (Cohen, Cheyer, Horvitz, El Kaliouby, & Whittaker, 2016; Munteanu et al., 2017; Munteanu & Penn, 2014) there is no clear idea of what forms the core of speech-based work in HCI.”
BackgroundSelf-citationOn user behaviour adaptation under interface change
Rosman, B., Ramamoorthy, S., Mahmud, M. M. H., & Kohli, P. (2014) · International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/2557500.2557535 · Cited by 24
Leahu, L., Cohn, M., & March, W. (2013) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2466455 · Cited by 24 · cited 1×
“Leahu et al. (2013) discuss the flexible, rather than static, nature of “human” and “machine” identity categories in this context, and possible experimental design implications.”
BackgroundCarrot and stick 2.0: The benefits of natural and motivational prosody in computer-assisted learning
Wolff, S., & Brechmann, A. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.015 · Cited by 24
Towards Understanding How Speech Output Affects Navigation System Credibility
Cowan, B. R., Gannon, D., Walsh, J., Kinneen, J., O'Keefe, E., & Xie, L.-X. (2016) · CHI Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/2851581.2892469 · Cited by 23 · cited 2×
“We excluded works in progress and extended abstracts (e.g. Aylett et al., 2015; Cowan et al., 2016), debates or panel discussions (e.”
BackgroundTruschin, S., Schermann, M., Goswami, S., & Krcmar, H. (2014) · TCHI · doi:10.1145/2544066 · Cited by 23 · cited 5×
“Effects of voice-matching were also investigated by Truschin et al. (2014). In research using speech to read emails during driving, an interface that used synthesized voices that matched email sender characteristics led to better comprehension scores than when a single voice was used for all emails. However, this nega…”
BackgroundInfluentialHuman perception of intended addressee during computer-assisted meetings
Lunsford, R., & Oviatt, S. (2006) · International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/1180995.1181002 · Cited by 23 · cited 1×
“Lunsford & Oviatt (2006) investigated the accuracy of people’s judgements of whether a speaker’s intended interlocutor is a human or computer.”
BackgroundA Multimodal Approach to Assessing User Experiences with Agent Helpers
Clark, L., Ofemile, A., Adolphs, S., & Rodden, T. (2016) · ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. · doi:10.1145/2983926 · Cited by 21 · cited 3×
“, 2011), and general speech production (Clark et al., 2016), with each study varying in the concepts explored within those sub-topics.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationSimplified Audio Production in Asynchronous Voice-Based Discussions
Sivaraman, V., Yoon, D., & Mitros, P. (2016) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858416 · Cited by 21
Modeling input modality choice in mobile graphical and speech interfaces
Schaffer, S., Schleicher, R., & Möller, S. (2015) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.11.004 · Cited by 21 · cited 2×
“, 2017), user modelling (Schaffer et al., 2015), perceived sense of agency (Limerick et al.”
BackgroundMACCS: enabling communications for mobile workers within healthcare environments
Sammon, M., Brotman, L., Peebles, E., & Seligmann, D. (2006) · Mobile HCI · doi:10.1145/1152215.1152224 · Cited by 21 · cited 4×
“System measures like system logs appeared in fewer papers (N=18) and were useful for measuring what people used systems for (Sammon et al., 2006).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBigot, L. L., Jamet, E., Rouet, J., & Amiel, V. (2006) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.006 · Cited by 21 · cited 2×
“Le Bigot et al. (2006) found performance with an information retrieval system improved over time, regardless of using speech or text.”
BackgroundMethodFischer, A. R. H., Price, K. J., & Sears, A. (2005) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1903_1 · Cited by 21
Katz, J., Aspden, P., & Reich, W. A. (1997) · Behavior and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/014492997119860 · Cited by 21
Sasayaki: augmented voice web browsing experience
Sato, D., Zhu, S., Kobayashi, M., Takagi, H., & Asakawa, C. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979353 · Cited by 20 · cited 2×
“For example, asking users to evaluate voices (Dahlbäck, Wang, Nass, & Alwin, 2007) or assess an auditory web-browser (Sato, Zhu, Kobayashi, Takagi, & Asakawa, 2011).”
BackgroundWilkie, J. G. M., Jack, M. A., & Littlewood, P. (2004) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.08.001 · Cited by 20 · cited 5×
“Another paper exploring studies on system politeness found that the use of different politeness strategies led people to have less positive attitudes towards an automated voice banking service (Wilkie et al., 2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialVoiceLabel: using speech to label mobile sensor data
Harada, S., Lester, J., Patel, K., Saponas, T. S., Fogarty, J., Landay, J., & Wobbrock, J. (2008) · International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/1452392.1452407 · Cited by 20
Motion does matter: an examination of speech-based text entry on the move
Price, K. J., Lin, M., Feng, J.-J., Goldman, R., Sears, A., & Jacko, J. (2006) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-005-0006-8 · Cited by 20
Howell, M., Love, S., & Turner, M. (2005) · Behavior and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290512331319058 · Cited by 20
A comparison of mouse and speech input control of a text-annotation system
Bekker, M., van Nes, F. V., & Juola, J. (1990) · Behavior and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449299508914621 · Cited by 20 · cited 1×
“Bekker et al. (1995) examined the use of only speech and mouse input with a document-annotation system, observing more errors with speech and a user preference for mouse input.”
BackgroundBenjamin, A. (2017) · Compassion in Early Modern Literature and Culture · doi:10.1080/03643409.1978.12034012 · Cited by 20 · cited 1×
“Finally, one content-focused paper assessed evaluations of a spoken dialogue system designed to tailor its use of acknowledgements in accordance with the perceived ‘ephemeral emotions’ of its user (Tsukahara & Ward, 2001).”
BackgroundThe Effects on Decision Task Performance of Computer Synthetic Voice Output
DeHaemer, M., & Wallace, W. (1992) · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. · doi:10.1016/0020-7373(92)90052-m · Cited by 20 · cited 1×
“Approaches commonly used in interaction design research such as cultural probes (DeHaemer & Wallace, 1992), contextual inquiry (Holtzblatt & Jones, 1993), and participatory design more generally (Schuler & Namioka, 1993) tended not to be used in the research we reviewed.”
MethodComparison of speech-based in-car HMI concepts in a driving simulation study
Hofmann, H., Tobisch, V., Ehrlich, U., Berton, A., & Mahr, A. (2014) · International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/2557500.2557509 · Cited by 18 · cited 4×
“We were surprised to see that, although SASSI was deployed once in the reviewed papers (Hofmann et al., 2014), the scale has rarely been used in HCI publications.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMcCaughan, E., Prue, G., & Parahoo, K. (2009) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2009.04.001 · Cited by 18 · cited 2×
“Following Mekler et al. (2014) we extracted the research aims, interaction type being researched, methodologies, and results from each paper.”
A longitudinal evaluation of hands-free speech-based navigation during dictation
Feng, J.-J., Sears, A., & Karat, C.-M. (2006) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.12.001 · Cited by 18
Kallinen, K., & Ravaja, N. (2005) · Behavior and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290512331335609 · Cited by 18 · cited 3×
“Kallinen & Ravaja (2005) compared perceptions and physiological reactions towards hearing news read on a computer at a slow or fast speech rate, observing the fast rate as more arousing yet less understandable than the slow rate.”
BackgroundMethodSocial Boundaries of Appropriate Speech in HCI: A Politeness Perspective
Clark, L. (2018) · Electronic workshops in computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2018.76 · Cited by 17
Self-citationA pen and speech-based storytelling system for Chinese children
Wang, D., Li, J., Zhang, J., & Dai, G.-Z. (2008) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.014 · Cited by 17
Dialogue design in speech-mediated data-entry: the role of syntactic constraints and feedback
Murray, A. C., Jones, D., & Frankish, C. (1996) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0052 · Cited by 17
Computer aided conversation for severely physically impaired non-speaking people
Alm, N., Todman, J., Elder, L., & Newell, A. (1993) · INTERCHI · doi:10.1145/169059.169187 · Cited by 17 · cited 4×
“Alm et al. (1993) assessed the usability of an assistive dialogue prototype for users who have severe physical disabilities and do not speak.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialModelling human tutors' feedback to inform natural language interfaces for learning
Porayska-Pomsta, K., & Mellish, C. (2013) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.02.002 · Cited by 16 · cited 2×
“The first of these papers evaluated a computer output model based on human tutor feedback (Porayska-Pomsta & Mellish, 2013), while the second examined the use of a hands-free audio device with a speech interface in a healthcare setting (Sammon, Brotman, Peebles, & Seligmann, 2006).”
BackgroundDoes voice anthropomorphism affect lexical alignment in speech-based human-computer dialogue?
Cowan, B. R., & Branigan, H. (2015) · Interspeech · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2015-75 · Cited by 16 · cited 1×
“However, there are a number of studies published in other fields that are relevant to speech HCI work, including cognitive psychology, ergonomics, linguistics, and speech technology (e.g. Branigan et al., 2011; Large et al., 2017; Cowan & Branigan, 2015; Mendelson & Aylett, 2017).”
BackgroundFrom vocal to multimodal dialogue management
Melichar, M., & Cenek, P. (2006) · INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION · doi:10.1145/1180995.1181008 · Cited by 15 · cited 2×
“Examples include lexical choices (e.g. Porcheron et al., 2017) and modality use (e.g. (e.g. Melichar & Cenek, 2006).”
BackgroundHu, J., Winterboer, A., Nass, C., Moore, J., & Illowsky, R. (2007) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240827 · Cited by 15 · cited 1×
“Hu et al. (2007) compared “user-modeled summarize and refine (UMSR)” and “summarize and refine (SR)” approaches in voice-based browsing during simulated driving tasks.”
BackgroundInvestigating memory constraints on recall of options in interactive voice response system messages
Bigot, L. L., Caroux, L., Ros, C., Lacroix, A., & Botherel, V. (2013) · Behavior and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2011.563800 · Cited by 14 · cited 1×
“User recall of menu options in IVR systems was significantly impaired when five or more options were presented, and with suffixes impairing memorization regardless of message (Le Bigot, Caroux, Ros, Lacroix, & Botherel, 2013).”
BackgroundAudio-visual cues distinguishing self- from system-directed speech in younger and older adults
Lunsford, R., Oviatt, S., & Coulston, R. (2005) · International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/1088463.1088494 · Cited by 14
Facilitating Development of Pragmatic Competence through a Voice-driven Video Learning Interface
Culbertson, G., Shen, S., Jung, M. F., & Andersen, E. (2017) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025805 · Cited by 13
Speech-based cursor control using grids: modelling performance and comparisons with other solutions
Dai, L., Goldman, R., Sears, A., & Lozier, J. (2005) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290412331328563 · Cited by 13
Wang, Q., & Nass, C. (2005) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1054972.1055086 · Cited by 13 · cited 2×
“Other measures included system recognition of user input (e.g. Oviatt et al., 2008), user agency (Limerick, Moore, & Coyle, 2015), and assessing user creativity and self-disclosure (Wang & Nass, 2005), and cognitive load (Truschin et al., 2014).”
BackgroundThe role of spoken feedback in experiencing multimodal interfaces as human-like
Qvarfordt, P., Jönsson, A., & Dahlbäck, N. (2003) · INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION · doi:10.1145/958432.958478 · Cited by 12
Visualisation improves the usability of voice-operated mobile phone services
Howell, M., Love, S., & Turner, M. (2006) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.03.002 · Cited by 12
Tutor design for speech-based interfaces
Hakulinen, J., Turunen, M., Salonen, E.-P., & Räihä, K.-J. (2004) · Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems · doi:10.1145/1013115.1013137 · Cited by 12 · cited 2×
“Hakulinen et al. (2004) explored the design and iterative development of an integrated tutor for teaching new users to operate a speech-based email reading application.”
BackgroundExplicit feedback from users attenuates memory biases in human-system dialogue
Knutsen, D., Bigot, L. L., & Ros, C. (2017) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.004 · Cited by 12 · cited 4×
“Memory based research included measures of user recall in specific aspects of interaction (e.g. recall of system outputs (Knutsen et al., 2017)).”
BackgroundInfluentialNLify: lightweight spoken natural language interfaces via exhaustive paraphrasing
Han, S., Philipose, M., & Ju, Y. (2013) · Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1145/2493432.2493458 · Cited by 11
Adaptation and user expertise modelling in AthosMail
Jokinen, K. (2006) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-005-0002-z · Cited by 11
Listening to your inner voices: investigating means for voice notifications
Bhatia, S., & McCrickard, S. (2006) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1124772.1124947 · Cited by 11 · cited 1×
“Another paper assessed the impact of voice familiarity on user reactions and levels of interruption and comprehension (Bhatia & McCrickard, 2006).”
BackgroundProceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
(2016) · International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/2993148 · Cited by 11
Demonstration of sketch-thru-plan: a multimodal interface for command and control
Cohen, P. R., Buchanan, M., Kaiser, E. C., Corrigan, M., Lind, S., & Wesson, M. (2013) · International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/2522848.2531754 · Cited by 10 · cited 1×
“Speech can also be used solely as an input modality, often seen in ‘command and control’ of systems or devices (Cohen et al., 2013).”
BackgroundCould a dialog save your life?: analyzing the effects of speech interaction strategies while driving
Vetek, A., & Lemmelä, S. (2011) · International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/2070481.2070506 · Cited by 10
Interaction science SIG: overcoming challenges
Howes, A., Cowan, B. R., Janssen, C., Cox, A., Cairns, P., Hornof, A., Payne, S., & Pirolli, P. (2014) · CHI Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/2559206.2559208 · Cited by 8 · cited 1×
“From this a more robust theory of language production and interlocutor perceptions may grow, which will be able to inform design and interaction science research (Howes et al., 2014) in the speech domain.”
BackgroundWilke, J., McInnes, F., Jack, M., & Littlewood, P. (2007) · Behavior and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290600717783 · Cited by 8 · cited 2×
“A number of papers took more of a usability engineering-based approach, comparing interface designs e.g. menu structures (e.g. Wilkie et al., 2005; Wilke et al., 2007), and observing their effect on user attitudes and performance.”
BackgroundLiapis, C. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.011 · Cited by 7
DERRIKS, B., & Willems, D. (1998) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1997.0182 · Cited by 7 · cited 2×
“These included corpus data (Derriks & Willems, 1998), focus groups (Cowan et al., 2017), user modelling (Schaffer et al., 2015), perceived sense of agency (Limerick et al., 2015) and physiological data (Kallinen & Ravaja, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodPaternò, F., Italy, M. '. 1. I. C. O. H.-C. I. W. M. D. A. S. 2. F., Association for Computing Machinery-Digital Library, ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction, & SIGs, A. (2016) · International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services · doi:10.1145/2935334 · Cited by 7
Interactive Radio: A New Platform for Calm Computing
Aylett, M., Vazquez-Alvarez, Y., & Baillie, L. (2015) · CHI Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/2702613.2732785 · Cited by 5 · cited 1×
“We excluded works in progress and extended abstracts (e.g. Aylett et al., 2015; Cowan et al., 2016), debates or panel discussions (e.g. Cohen et al., 2016) workshop papers (e.g. Munteanu et al., 2017) and magazine articles, for instance those from Communications of the ACM (e.g. Shneiderman, 2000)…”
BackgroundSelf-citationMixed-initiative dialog management for speech-based interaction with graphical user interfaces
Löhr, A., & Brügge, B. (2008) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357205 · Cited by 4
Ramanarayanan, V., Leong, C., Suendermann-Oeft, D., & Evanini, K. (2017) · International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/3136755.3136767 · Cited by 4 · cited 1×
“Ramanarayanan et al. (2017) tested the efficacy of crowd source evaluations of engagement levels between non-native English speakers and a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) system.”
BackgroundSpeech-based navigation and error correction: a comprehensive comparison of two solutions
Feng, J.-J., Zhu, S., Hu, R., & Sears, A. (2011) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-010-0185-9 · Cited by 4
Response Assertiveness in Human-Computer Dialogues
Buchheit, P., & Moher, T. G. (1990) · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. · doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(05)80178-6 · Cited by 4
Mijrata, A., & Takahashi, Y. (2002) · IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/icsmc.2002.1173394 · Cited by 1
Proceedings of ACL-2016 System Demonstrations
Pradhan, S., & Apidianaki, M. (2016) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-4 · Cited by 1
Flagged first, then by citations
19 of the 175 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Bargas-avila, 2011, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems
- Cuendet, 2013, Conference on human factors in computing systems-proceedings, 2833, 10.1145/2470654.2481392 · DOI
- Kamitis, 2016, Intelligent Personal Assistant-Products, Technologies and Market: 2017–2022
- LaPlante, 1992, Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: prevalence, payment, need, and trends, Adv Data Vital Health Stat, 217, 1
- Munteanu, 2014, CHI’14 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, 1035, 10.1145/2559206.2567826 · DOI
- Nielsen, 1994, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Proc. 3rd Annual ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium, 152, 10.1145/191666.191729 · DOI · Paper page
- Norman, 2013, The Design of Everyday Things (revised and expanded edition)
- Pearl, 2016, Designing Voice User Interfaces: Principles of Conversational Experiences
- Qvarfordt, 2003, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Multimodal interfaces, 8
- Weinschenk, 2000, Designing Effective Speech Interfaces
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rapp, A., Curti, L., & Boldi, A. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630 · Cited by 733
UX Research on Conversational Human-AI Interaction: A Literature Review of the ACM Digital Library
Zheng, Q., Tang, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, W., & Huang, Y. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501855 · Cited by 139
“This was also found by prior literature reviews of CAs [41, 139].”
ResultHeuristic Evaluation of Conversational Agents
Langevin, R., Lordon, R. J., Avrahami, T., Cowan, B. R., Hirsch, T., & Hsieh, G. (2021) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445312 · Cited by 162
“Unlike other forms of human-computer interfaces, there is little consensus as to best practice for the design of conversational agents [2].”
BackgroundToward a design theory for virtual companionship
Strohmann, T., Siemon, D., Khosrawi-Rad, B., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2022) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2022.2084620 · Cited by 95
“This is consistent with further studies in which the participants question the relevance of a friendship-like relationship with machines, as well as a human-like CA design (Clark et al., 2019b; Doyle et al., 2019).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialExamining Design Choices of Questionnaires in VR User Studies
Alexandrovsky, D., Putze, S., Bonfert, M., Höffner, S., Michelmann, P., Wenig, D., Malaka, R., & Smeddinck, J. D. (2020) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376260 · Cited by 92
“[9] note that evaluation of speech interfaces in real-world contexts is limited.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, L., Doyle, P., Garaialde, D., Gilmartin, E., Schlögl, S., Edlund, J., Aylett, M., Cabral, J., Munteanu, C., Edwards, J., & R Cowan, B.
- Affiliations
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- Universität Innsbruck (AT)
- KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
- CereProc (United Kingdom) (GB)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- School of Information and Communication Studies, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
- Corresponding author
- Clark, Leigh
- ORCID
- Venue
- Interacting with Computers
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-06-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 349-371
- ISSN
- 0953-5438 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-7951
- OpenAlex
- W2896893982
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 175
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9
- FWCI
- 10.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Interacting with Computers (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Irish Research Council
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- speech interfaces, usability evaluation, Wizard of Oz, interactive voice response, assistive technology, accessibility, virtual assistants, user memory, speech production, modality comparison, research gaps, measurement reliability
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
