Cited by 110Usability and User Interface DesignSpeech and dialogue systemsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

How do users know what to say?

Open access
Yankelovich, Nicole·1996·interactions

Abstract

article Free Access Share on How do users know what to say? Author: Nicole Yankelovich Sun Microsystems Laboratories Sun Microsystems LaboratoriesView Profile Authors Info & Claims InteractionsVolume 3Issue 6Nov./Dec. 1996 pp 32–43https://doi.org/10.1145/242485.242500Published:01 December 1996Publication History 62citation1,019DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations62Total Downloads1,019Last 12 Months47Last 6 weeks4 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my Alerts New Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/242485.242500

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Older users' reception and interpretation of auditory stimuli are limited by innate physiological mechanisms such as linear processing, which reduce overall comprehension, and by acquired psychological factors such as low self-efficacy, which reduce willingness of interaction.

    “However, our reception and interpretation of auditory stimuli are limited by innate physiological mechanisms such as linear processing, which reduce overall comprehension (Yankelovich, 1996), and by acquired psychological factors such as low self-efficacy, which reduce willingness of interaction (Bulyko et al., 2005).”

    From Using Different Error Handling Strategies to Facilitate Older Users' Interaction With Chatbots in Learning Information and Communication Technologies (2021) · cites this paper as Yankelovich, 1996

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yankelovich, N.
Affiliations
Sun Microsystems Laboratories
Corresponding author
Yankelovich, Nicole
Venue
interactions
Published
1996-12
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
32-43
ISSN
  • 1072-5520 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-3449
OpenAlex
W2075729255
Cited by
110
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
interactions (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
user-generated content, user-generated text, user-generated images, user-generated video, user-generated media

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