Cited by 45Speech and dialogue systemsLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Talking with Conversational Agents in Collaborative Action

Open access
Porcheron, Martin, Fischer, Joel E., McGregor, Moira, Brown, Barry, Luger, Ewa, Candello, Heloisa, O'Hara, Kenton·2017·Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

Abstract

This one-day workshop intends to bring together both academics and industry practitioners to explore collaborative challenges in speech interaction. Recent improvements in speech recognition and computing power has led to conversational interfaces being introduced to many of the devices we use every day, such as smartphones, watches, and even televisions. These interfaces allow us to get things done, often by just speaking commands, relying on a reasonably well understood single-user model. While research on speech recognition is well established, the social implications of these interfaces remain underexplored, such as how we socialise, work, and play around such technologies, and how these might be better designed to support collaborative collocated talk-in-action. Moreover, the advent of new products such as the Amazon Echo and Google Home, which are positioned as supporting multi-user interaction in collocated environments such as the home, makes exploring the social and collaborative challenges around these products, a timely topic. In the workshop, we will review current practices and reflect upon prior work on studying talk-in-action and collocated interaction. We wish to begin a dialogue that takes on the renewed interest in research on spoken interaction with devices, grounded in the existing practices of the CSCW community.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3022198.3022666

Cites

23 of 23 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., McGregor, M., Brown, B., Luger, E., Candello, H., & O'Hara, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • IBM Research - Brazil (BR)
  • Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-02-25
Pages
431-436
OpenAlex
W2588723544
Cited by
45
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
EPSRC (EP/G037574/1 EP/G065802/1 EP/N014243/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
chatbots, collaborative interaction, collocated interaction, speech interfaces, multi-user interaction, smart speakers, Amazon Echo, Google Home, computer-supported cooperative work

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