Cited by 83Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesSpeech and dialogue systemsNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

The Timing of Utterance Planning in Task-Oriented Dialogue: Evidence from a Novel List-Completion Paradigm

Open access
Barthel, Mathias, Sauppe, Sebastian, Levinson, Stephen C., Meyer, Antje S.·2016·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

In conversation, interlocutors rarely leave long gaps between turns, suggesting that next speak- ers begin to plan their turns while listening to the previous speaker. The present experiment used analyses of speech onset latencies and eye-movements in a task-oriented dialogue paradigm to investigate when speakers start planning their response. Adult German participants heard a confederate describe sets of objects in utterances that either ended in a noun (e.g. Ich habe eine Tür und ein Fahrrad (‘I have a door and a bicycle’)) or a verb form (Ich habe eine Tür und ein Fahrrad besorgt (‘I have gotten a door and a bicycle’)), while the presence or absence of the final verb either was or was not predictable from the preceding sentence structure. In response, participants had to name any unnamed objects they could see in their own display in utterances such as Ich habe ein Ei (‘I have an egg’). The main question was when participants started to plan their response. The results are consistent with the view that speakers begin to plan their turn as soon as sufficient information is available to do so, irrespective of further incoming words.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01858

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Several experiments have shown that speech planning during listening is possible and that it facilitates fast responding.

    “However, several experiments have shown that speech planning during listening is indeed possible and that it facilitates fast responding.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Barthel, Sauppe, Levinson, & Meyer, 2016

  • Bögels, Casillas, and Levinson (2018) observed an average response time of 498 ms for the fastest condition, and Barthel, Sauppe, Levinson, and Meyer (2016) observed an average response time of 749 ms for the fastest condition.

    “Bögels, Casillas, and Levinson (2018) observed an average response time of 498 ms for the fastest condition, and Barthel, Sauppe, Levinson, and Meyer (2016) observed an average response time of 749 ms for the fastest condition.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Barthel, Sauppe, Levinson, and Meyer, 2016

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

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Fox J. Weisberg S. (2011). An R Companion to Applied Regression, 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  2. Jaeger T. F. (2006). Redundancy and Syntactic Reduction in Spontaneous Speech. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
  3. Levinson S. C. (1987). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barthel, M., Sauppe, S., Levinson, S. C., & Meyer, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (NL)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Barthel, Mathias
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2016-12-01
Volume
7
Pages
1858-1858
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2559394316
Cited by
83
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4
FWCI
29.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Publication Server of the Institute for German Language (Institute for German Language) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
European Research Council (269484)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
utterance planning, task-oriented dialogue, speech onset latency, eye movements, turn-taking

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