Interacting Timescales in Perspective-Taking

Dale, Rick; Galati, Alexia; Alviar, Camila; Kallens, Pablo Contreras; Ramirez-Aristizabal, Adolfo G.; Tabatabaeian, Maryam; Vinson, David W.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01278

Cited by 17 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 109 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The influence of partner models in HMD may therefore not be absolute, but granular, with more egocentric production processes also at play in interaction. This echoes recent findings on the role of other-centric and egocentric processes in dialogue [20,21].…”

Section: The Impact Of Accent On Partner Models and Lexical Choicesupporting

confidence: 88%

What's in an accent?

Cowan

Doyle

Edwards

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assumptions we make about a dialogue partner's knowledge and communicative ability (i.e. our partner models) can influence our language choices. Although similar processes may operate in human-machine dialogue, the role of design in shaping these models, and their subsequent effects on interaction are not clearly understood. Focusing on synthesis design, we conduct a referential communication experiment to identify the impact of accented speech on lexical choice. In particular, we focus on whether accented speech may encourage the use of lexical alternatives that are relevant to a partner's accent, and how this is may vary when in dialogue with a human or machine. We find that people are more likely to use American English terms when speaking with a US accented partner than an Irish accented partner in both human and machine conditions. This lends support to the proposal that synthesis design can influence partner perception of lexical knowledge, which in turn guide user's lexical choices. We discuss the findings with relation to the nature and dynamics of partner models in human machine dialogue.

show abstract

Section: The Impact Of Accent On Partner Models and Lexical Choicesupporting

confidence: 88%

What's in an accent?

Cowan

Doyle

Edwards

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current findings revealed that consistency in ToM-use cannot be taken for granted. This echoes recent work which suggests that the context and saliency of the cues associated with self and other could alter the ways in which perspectives are inferred and considered over the course of an interaction [ 32 – 34 ]. Additionally, a conversational partner and their social relationship with the listener could determine the degrees to which listeners are motivated to take their partner’s perspective into account [ 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Why are listeners sometimes (but not always) egocentric? Making inferences about using others’ perspective in referential communication

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability to understand others’ mental states, and that these mental states can differ from our own. Although healthy adults have little trouble passing conceptual tests of ToM (e.g., the false belief task [ 1 ]), they do not always succeed in using ToM [ 2 , 3 ]. In order to be successful in referential communication, listeners need to correctly infer the way in which a speaker’s perspective constrains reference and inhibit their own perspective accordingly. However, listeners may require prompts to take these effortful inferential steps. The current study investigated the possibility of embedding prompts in the instructions for listeners to make inference about using a speaker’s perspective. Experiment 1 showed that provision of a clear introductory example of the full chain of inferences resulted in large improvement in performance. Residual egocentric errors suggested that the improvement was not simply due to superior comprehension of the instructions. Experiment 2 further dissociated the effect by placing selective emphasis on making inference about inhibiting listeners’ own perspective versus using the speaker’s perspective. Results showed that only the latter had a significant effect on successful performance. The current findings clearly demonstrated that listeners do not readily make inferences about using speakers’ perspectives, but can do so when prompted.

show abstract

“…The consistency in performance across the two body alignment conditions may reflect the robustness of perspective-taking as a behavior that emerges from different processes accumulating information at different interacting timescales (Dale et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tollefsen & Dale, 2012;Dale, et al, 2018) and potentially task performance. For example, in direction giving, the task partners' body alignment in space can support conceptual alignment by providing a simple global cue (Brennan, Galati, & Kuhlen, 2010) for how to represent the partner's perspective in the immediate task environment (e.g., "same perspective as mine"), while linguistic and behavioral alignment exhibited as partners respond contingently to one another can support conceptual alignment through the emergence of local routines (e.g., the re-use of expressions from a route perspective, tracking the navigator's path).…”

Section: Relative Body Alignment Grounding and Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Aligned Bodies Align Minds? The Partners’ Body Alignment as a Constraint on Spatial Perspective Use

Galati

Symeonidou

Avraamides

2019

Discourse Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a direction-giving task, we examine whether a high-level constraint-the task partners' relative body alignment-influences spatial language use and task accuracy. In 32 pairs, task partners interacted in two conditions: for one route description, direction givers (DGs) and direction followers (DFs) sat side-by-side (aligned condition), and for another they sat opposite one another (counter-aligned condition). After each description, DFs drew the route on a map. When pairs were counter-aligned (vs. aligned), DGs increased their use of expressions from a survey perspective, using more frequently terms such as east-west. When counter-aligned, DFs also used more words per conversational turn, which was taken to reflect the increased difficulty of coordinating in that condition. Still, in terms of task performance, the accuracy of DFs' drawings was unaffected by the partners' body alignment or spatial language use; it was only predicted by the DGs' spatial ability. We argue that, because direction-giving emphasizes accuracy, task partners invest in strategies that contribute to mutual understanding (e.g., recaps of the route by the DF at the end, evidenced by shifts in language use over time). Thus, body alignment in direction-giving impacts coordination difficulty and spatial language use, but it does not singularly influence task performance.

show abstract

Interacting Timescales in Perspective-Taking

Cited by 17 publications

References 109 publications

What's in an accent?

What's in an accent?

Why are listeners sometimes (but not always) egocentric? Making inferences about using others’ perspective in referential communication

Do Aligned Bodies Align Minds? The Partners’ Body Alignment as a Constraint on Spatial Perspective Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About