Cited by 34Emotion and Mood RecognitionSpeech and Audio ProcessingLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

Estimating verbal expressions of task and social cohesion in meetings by quantifying paralinguistic mimicry

Nanninga, Marjolein C., Zhang, Yanxia, Lehmann-Willenbrock, Nale, Szlávik, Zoltán, Hung, Hayley·2017·Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction

Abstract

In this paper we propose a novel method of estimating verbal expressions of task and social cohesion by quantifying the dynamic alignment of nonverbal behaviors in speech. As team cohesion has been linked to team effectiveness and productivity, automatically estimating team cohesion can be a useful tool for assessing meeting quality and broader team functioning. In total, more than 20 hours of business meetings (3-8 people) were recorded and annotated for behavioral indicators of group cohesion, distinguishing between social and task cohesion. We hypothesized that behaviors commonly referred to as mimicry can be indicative of verbal expressions of social and task cohesion. Where most prior work targets mimicry of dyads, we investigated the effectiveness of quantifying group-level phenomena. A dynamic approach was adopted in which both the cohesion expressions and the paralinguistic mimicry were quantified on small time windows. By extracting features solely related to the alignment of paralinguistic speech behavior, we found that 2-minute high and low social cohesive regions could be classified with a 0.71 Area under the ROC curve, performing on par with the state-of-the-art where turn-taking features were used. Estimating task cohesion was more challenging, obtaining an accuracy of 0.64 AUC, outperforming the state-of-the-art. Our results suggest that our proposed methodology is successful in quantifying group-level paralinguistic mimicry. As both the state-of-the-art turn-t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3136755.3136811

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • The study's small sample size (16 students across four teams) constrains generalisability.

    “This exploratory, descriptive study is limited by its small sample size (16 students across four teams), which, while consistent with prior ecological classroom studies (Nanninga et al., 2017, pp. 206 -215; Zhang et al., 2018), constrains generalisability.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nanninga, M. C., Zhang, Y., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Szlávik, Z., & Hung, H.
Affiliations
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-11-03
Pages
206-215
OpenAlex
W2767664584
Cited by
34
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5
FWCI
4.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
NWO STW (2015/16734/STW)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Keywords
social cohesion, task cohesion, business meetings

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