CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Communicative Listener Feedback in Human-Agent Interaction: Artificial Speakers Need to Be Attentive and Adaptive

Buschmeier, Hendrik, Kopp, Stefan·2018·International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
DOI 10.65109/ypvt5468
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In human dialogue, listener feedback is a pervasive phenomenon that serves important functions in the coordination of the conversation, both in regulating its flow, as well as in creating and ensuring understanding between interlocutors. This make feedback an interesting mechanism for conversational human-agent interaction. In this paper we describe computational models for an attentive speaker' agent is able to (1) interpret the feedback behaviour of its human interlocutors by probabilistically attributing listening-related mental states to them; (2) incrementally adapt its ongoing language and behaviour generation to their needs; and (3) elicit feedback from them when needed. We present a semi-autonomous interaction study, in which we compare such an attentive speaker agent with agents that either do not adapt their behaviour to their listeners' needs, or employ highly explicit ways of ensuring understanding. The results show that human interlocutors interacting with the attentive speaker agent provided significantly more listener feedback, felt that the agent was attentive to, and adaptive to their feedback, attested the agent a desire to be understood, and rated it more helpful in resolving difficulties in their understanding.

Overview

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 · 10.65109/ypvt5468

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • When it comes to user feedback, domains where the agent is talking most of the time are typically selected, such as agent-human presentation scenarios.

    “When it comes to user feedback, domains where the agent is talking most of the time are typically selected, such as agenthuman presentation scenarios (Buschmeier and Kopp, 2018; Axelsson and Skantze, 2020).”

    From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Buschmeier and Kopp, 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Jens Allwood. 1988. Om det svenska systemet för språklig återkoppling [On the Swedish system of linguistic feedback]. In Svenskans Beskrivning 16, Per Linell et al. (Eds.). Vol. 1. Linköping University, Tema Kommunikation, Linköping, Sweden, 89-106.
  2. Jens Allwood and Loredana Cerrato. 2003. A study of gestural feedback expres- sions. In Proceedings of the 1st Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication. Copenhagen, Denmark, 7-22.
  3. Jens Allwood, Stefan Kopp, Karl Grammer, Elisabeh Ahlsén, Elisabeth Oberzaucher, and Markus Koppensteiner. 2007. The analysis of embodied communicative feedback in multimodal corpora: A prerequisite for behaviour simulation. Language Resources and Evaluation 41 (2007), 255-272. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10579-007-9056-2 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Janet B. Bavelas, Linda Coates, and Trudy Johnson. 2000. Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (2000), 941-952. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.941 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Janet B. Bavelas, Linda Coates, and Trudy Johnson. 2002. Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication 52 (2002), 566-580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02562.x · DOI · Paper page
  6. Elisabetta Bevacqua, Sathish Pammi, Sylwia Julia Hyniewska, Marc Schröder, and Catherine Pelachaud. 2010. Multimodal backchannels for embodied con- versational agents. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intel- ligent Virtual Agents. Philadelphia, PA, USA, 194-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-15892-6_21 · DOI
  7. Susan E. Brennan. 1990. Seeking and Providing Evidence for Mutual Understanding. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
  8. Harry Bunt. 2011. Multifunctionality in dialogue. Computer Speech and Language 25 (2011), 222-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2010.04.006 · DOI
  9. Hendrik Buschmeier. 2018. Attentive Speaking. From Listener Feedback to Interact- ive Adaptation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
  10. Hendrik Buschmeier, Timo Baumann, Benjamin Dosch, Stefan Kopp, and David Schlangen. 2012. Combining incremental language generation and incremental speech synthesis for adaptive information presentation. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. Seoul, South Korea, 295-303.
  11. Hendrik Buschmeier and Stefan Kopp. 2011. Towards conversational agents that attend to and adapt to communicative user feedback. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Reykjavík, Iceland, 169-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23974-8_19 · DOI
  12. Hendrik Buschmeier and Stefan Kopp. 2012. Using a Bayesian model of the listener to unveil the dialogue information state. In Proceedings of the 16th Work- shop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial). Paris, France, 12-20.
  13. Hendrik Buschmeier and Stefan Kopp. 2014. A dynamic minimal model of the listener for feedback-based dialogue coordination. In Proceedings of the 18th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial). Edinburgh, UK, 17-25.
  14. Hendrik Buschmeier and Stefan Kopp. 2014. When to elicit feedback in dialogue: Towards a model based on the information needs of speakers. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA). Boston, MA, USA, 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09767-1_10 · DOI
  15. Herbert H. Clark. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Herbert H. Clark and Meredyth A. Krych. 2004. Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50 (2004), 62-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Herbert H. Clark and Edward F. Schaefer. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cog- nitive Science 13 (1989), 259-294. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Kohji Dohsaka and Akira Shimazu. 1997. A system architecture for spoken utterance production in collaborative dialogue. In Working Notes of the IJCAI-97 Workshop on Collaboration, Cooperation and Conflict in Dialogue Systems. Nagoya, Japan.
  19. Konrad Ehlich. 1986. Interjektionen. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357133 · DOI
  20. Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith. 2006. The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron 50 (2006), 531-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.001 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Mattias Heldner, Jens Edlund, and Julia Hirschberg. 2010. Pitch similarity in the vicinity of backchannels. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH 2010. Makuhari, Japan, 3054-3057.
  22. Harold Jeffreys. 1961. Theory of Probability (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
  23. Daphne Koller and Nir Friedman. 2009. Probabilistic Graphical Models. Principles and Techniques. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  24. Stefan Kopp. 2010. Social resonance and embodied coordination in face-to-face conversation with artificial interlocutors. Speech Communication 52 (2010), 587- 597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.02.007 · DOI
  25. Stefan Kopp, Jens Allwood, Karl Grammar, Elisabeth Ahlsén, and Thorsten Stocksmeier. 2008. Modeling embodied feedback with virtual humans. In Modeling Communication with Robots and Virtual Humans, Ipke Wachsmuth and Günther Knoblich (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 18-37. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79037-2_2 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Robert M. Krauss and Sidney Weinheimer. 1966. Concurrent feedback, confirma- tion, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4 (1966), 343-346. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023705 · DOI · Paper page
  27. François Mairesse and Marylin A. Walker. 2010. Towards personality-based user adaptation: Psychologically informed stylistic language generation. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 20 (2010), 227-278. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11257-010-9076-2 · DOI
  28. Zofia Malisz, Marcin Włodarczak, Hendrik Buschmeier, Joanna Skubisz, Stefan Kopp, and Petra Wagner. 2016. The ALICO corpus: Analysing the active listener. Language Resources and Evaluation 50 (2016), 411-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10579-016-9355-6 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Teruhisa Misu, Etsuo Mizukami, Yoshinori Shiga, Shinichi Kawamoto, Hisashi Kawai, and Satoshi Nakamura. 2011. Toward construction of spoken dialogue system that evokes users' spontaneous backchannels. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. Portland, OR, USA, 259-265.
  30. Louis-Philippe Morency, Iwan de Kok, and Jonathan Gratch. 2010. A probab- ilistic multimodal approach for predicting listener backchannels. Autonom- ous Agents and Multiagent Systems 20 (2010), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10458-009-9092-y · DOI · Paper page
  31. Yukiko I. Nakano, Gabe Reinstein, Tom Stocky, and Justine Cassell. 2003. Towards a model of face-to-face grounding. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Sapporo, Japan, 553-561. https: //doi.org/10.3115/1075096.1075166 · DOI
  32. Catharine Oertel, José Lopes, Yu Yu, Kenneth A. Funes Mora, Joakim Gustafson, Alan W. Black, and Jean-Marc Odobez. 2016. Towards building an attentive artificial listener: On the perception of attentiveness in audio-visual feedback tokens. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. Tokyo, Japan, 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993148.2993188 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Dennis Reidsma, Iwan de Kok, Daniel Neiberg, Sathish Pammi, Bart van Straalen, Khiet Truong, and Herwin van Welbergen. 2011. Continuous interaction with a virtual human. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 4 (2011), 97-118. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12193-011-0060-x · DOI · Paper page
  34. Zsófia Ruttkay, Claire Dormann, and Han Noot. 2004. Embodied conversational agents on a common ground. A framework for design and evaluation. In From Brows to Trust. Evaluating Embodied Conversational Agents, Zsófia M. Ruttkay and Catherine Pelachaud (Eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 27-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2730-3_2 · DOI
  35. David Schlangen and Gabriel Skantze. 2011. A general, abstract model of incremental dialogue processing. Dialogue and Discourse 2 (2011), 83-111. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2011.105 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Gabriel Skantze, Anna Hjalmarsson, and Catharine Oertel. 2014. Turn-taking, feedback and joint attention in situated human-robot interaction. Speech Com- munication 65 (2014), 50-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2014.05.005 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Matthew Stone. 2002. Lexicalized grammar 101. In Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics. Philadelphia, PA, USA, 77-84.
  38. Matthew Stone, Christine Doran, Bonnie Webber, Tonia Bleam, and Martha Palmer. 2003. Microplanning with communicative intentions: The SPUD system. Computational Intelligence 19 (2003), 311-381. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0824-7935. 2003.00221.x · DOI
  39. Marylin A. Walker, Diane J. Litman, Candace A. Kamm, and Alicia Abella. 1998. Evaluating spoken dialogue agents with PARADISE: Two case studies. Computer Speech and Language 12 (1998), 317-347. https://doi.org/10.1006/csla.1998.0110 · DOI
  40. Nigel Ward. 2004. Pragmatic functions of prosodic features in non-lexical ut- terances. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody. Nara, Japan, 325-328.
  41. Nigel Ward. 2006. Non-lexical conversational sounds in American English. Prag- matics & Cognition 14 (2006), 129-182. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.1.08war · DOI · Paper page
  42. Nigel Ward and Wataru Tsukahara. 2000. Prosodic features which cue back- channel responses in English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2000), 1177-1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00109-5 · DOI
  43. Peter Wittenburg, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann, and Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Genoa, Italy, 1556-1559.
  44. Victor H. Yngve. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Mary Ann Campbell et al. (Eds.). Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL, USA, 567-577.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Buschmeier, H., & Kopp, S.
Venue
International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
Publisher
IEEE Computer Society
Published
2018-07-09
Pages
1213-1221
ISSN
1558-2914
DOI
10.65109/ypvt5468
Cited by
12
References
1

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