2014
DOI: 10.1037/xge0000021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Complexity matching in dyadic conversation.

Abstract: Recent studies of dyadic interaction have examined phenomena of synchronization, entrainment, alignment, and convergence. All these forms of behavioral matching have been hypothesized to play a supportive role in establishing coordination and common ground between interlocutors. In the present study, evidence is found for a new kind of coordination termed complexity matching. Temporal dynamics in conversational speech signals were analyzed through time series of acoustic onset events. Timing in periods of acou… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

21
201
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 156 publications
(222 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
(101 reference statements)
21
201
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Streeck et al 2011;Tschacher et al 2014;Konvalinka et al 2011;Abney et al 2014). These coordination patterns are part of how individual SM schemes are enacted.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Streeck et al 2011;Tschacher et al 2014;Konvalinka et al 2011;Abney et al 2014). These coordination patterns are part of how individual SM schemes are enacted.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because conversations are comprised of multiple scales and levels with coupling between these (Abney, Paxton, Dale, & Kello, 2014), it is possible that phase transitions may have cascading effects across modalities, and as such the examination of many modalities and their crossover effects may be worthwhile (Barbosa, D echaine, VatikiotisBateson, & Yehia, 2012;Gorman et al, 2016). The long-term goal of such a real-time identification of phase transitions is the design of interactive systems that can administer timely prompts to enhance human cognitive performance alone and in teams .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 1 presents an analysis of methods employed in nearly three dozen published studies that have used shadowing or exposure tasks to assess phonetic convergence. Due to dramatic differences in purposes and methodologies that warrant a separate analysis, the table does not include studies that have examined convergence during conversational interaction (e.g., Abney, Paxton, Dale, & Kello, 2014;Aguilar et al, 2016;Dias & Rosenblum, 2011;Fusaroli & Tylén, 2016;Heldner, Edlund, & Hirschberg, 2010;Kim, Horton, & Bradlow, 2011;Levitan, Benus, Gravano, & Hirschberg, 2015;Levitan & Hirschberg, 2011;Louwerse, Dale, Bard, & Jeuniaux, 2012;Pardo, 2006;Pardo, Cajori Jay, et al, 2013;Pardo, Cajori Jay, & Krauss, 2010;Paxton & Dale, 2013) and under conditions related to longer-term exposure to other talkers, to second language training, or to different linguistic environments (e.g., Chang, 2012;Evans & Iverson, 2007;Harrington, 2006;Harrington, Palethorpe, & Watson, 2000;Pardo, Gibbons, Suppes, & Krauss, 2012;Sancier & Fowler, 1997). Arguably, laboratory speech-shadowing tasks provide a favorable context to elicit phonetic convergence and assess its basic properties (i.e., without interference from conversational goals).…”
Section: Phonetic Convergence In Speech Shadowing Tasksmentioning
confidence: 99%