Cited by 37Speech and dialogue systemsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIEmotion and Mood Recognition

Predicting Speaker Head Nods and the Effects of Affective Information

Lee, Jina, Marsella, Stacy C.·2010·IEEE Transactions on Multimedia

Abstract

During face-to-face conversation, our body is continually in motion, displaying various head, gesture, and posture movements. Based on findings describing the communicative functions served by these nonverbal behaviors, many virtual agent systems have modeled them to make the virtual agent look more effective and believable. One channel of nonverbal behaviors that has received less attention is head movements, despite the important functions served by them. The goal for this work is to build a domain-independent model of speaker's head movements that could be used to generate head movements for virtual agents. In this paper, we present a machine learning approach for learning models of head movements by focusing on when speaker head nods should occur, and conduct evaluation studies that compare the nods generated by this work to our previous approach of using handcrafted rules . To learn patterns of speaker head nods, we use a gesture corpus and rely on the linguistic and affective features of the utterance. We describe the feature selection process and training process for learning hidden Markov models and compare the results of the learned models under varying conditions. The results show that we can predict speaker head nods with high precision (.84) and recall (.89) rates, even without a deep representation of the surface text and that using affective information can help improve the prediction of the head nods (precision: .89, recall: .90). The evaluation study shows that the nods generated by the machine learning approach are perceived to be more natural in terms of nod timing than the nods generated by the rule-based approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmm.2010.2051874

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • In the field of conversational agents, head gesture generation and evaluation has mainly focussed on head movements as co-speech speaker-in contrast to listener-behavior.

    “In the field of conversational agents, head gesture generation and evaluation, has, however, mainly focussed on head movements (including nods) as co-speech speaker-in contrast to listenerbehavior (e.g., Lee and Marsella, 2010; Ding et al., 2013).”

    From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Lee and Marsella, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, J., & Marsella, S. C.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia
Published
2010-10
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
552-562
ISSN
1520-9210 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161956125
Cited by
37
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
head nodding, nonverbal communication, virtual agents, affective features, hidden Markov models, gesture prediction, feature selection, naturalness perception, face-to-face communication

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