CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Emotion and Mood RecognitionSpeech and dialogue systemsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Validation of Context Respectful Counseling Agent

Shinozaki, Tetsuo, Yamamoto, Yukiko, Tsuruta, Setsuo, Knauf, Rainer·2015·2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
DOI 10.1109/smc.2015.180
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many IT workers suffer from stress in doing their work and there are a few counselors to help them. To cope with this, a context respectful counseling agent (CRECA) is proposed. This agent extracts emotional words from clients' utterances throughout their dialogue to detect emotion changes and provides clients such changes as a dialogue summary. If no change is detected, it replies with paraphrases of clients' utterances followed by context-respectful prompts to narrow problems. The summary responses promote the reflection of clients. This way, the counseling agent can pretend to keep recognizing clients' psychological sufferings. It behaves as if it empathized with clients and continues talking to clients without losing their trust. Keeping reflection on themselves, clients reach more problem clarification and self-awareness, which enables them to solve their problems. Since the agent provides only information from clients' sayings and the summaries focused on the change in their emotions, there occur few problems of knowledge explosion and knowledge maintenance. An experiment verifies that our new agent with summarization function more effective than the agent without summarization function (Old CRECA) and ELIZA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/smc.2015.180

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Some potentially relevant conversational agents developed for the treatment of mental health problems were excluded from this review because of not reporting a mental health outcome measure.

    “Furthermore, some potentially relevant conversational agents developed for the treatment of mental health problems were excluded from this review because of not reporting a mental health outcome measure (eg, ELIZA [2,42-44]).”

    From Conversational agents in the treatment of mental health problems: mixed-method systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as [42]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Shinozaki, T., Yamamoto, Y., Tsuruta, S., & Knauf, R.
Affiliations
  • Tokyo Denki University (JP)
  • Technische Universität Ilmenau (DE)
ORCID
Venue
2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-10
Pages
993-998
ISSN
1062-922X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/smc.2015.180
OpenAlex
W2248314562
Cited by
2
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
dialogue summarization, paraphrase generation, reflection, empathy, occupational stress, information technology workforce, knowledge explosion, knowledge maintenance

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