The dual of denial: Two uses of disconfirmations in dialogue and their prosodic correlates

Krahmer, Emiel; Swerts, Marc; Theune, Mariët; Weegels, M.F.

doi:10.1016/s0167-6393(01)00030-9

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This outcome weakly confirms earlier work on the perception of negations ; albeit that subjects had more difficulty in classifying the negations in the current experiment. This could be due to the fact that the negation phrases in Krahmer et al (2002) were always cut from longer utterances (e.g., ''no, thanks'' or ''no, to Rotterdam!''). Alternatively, it could also be that the visual modality distracts listeners from the prosodic cues (compare Doherty-Sneddon , 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problem detection in human–machine interactions based on facial expressions of users

Barkhuysen¹,

Krahmer²,

Swerts³

2005

Speech Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes research into audiovisual cues to communication problems in interactions between users and a spoken dialogue system. The study consists of two parts. First, we describe a series of three perception experiments in which subjects are offered film fragments (without any dialogue context) of speakers interacting with a spoken dialogue system. In half of these fragments, the speaker is or becomes aware of a communication problem. Subjects have to determine by forced choice which are the problematic fragments. In all three tests, subjects are capable of performing this task to some extent, but with varying levels of correct classifications. Second, we report results of an observational analysis in which we first attempt to relate the perceptual results to visual features of the stimuli presented to subjects, and second to find out which visual features actually are potential cues for error detection. Our major finding is that more problematic contexts lead to more dynamic facial expressions, in line with earlier claims that communication errors lead to marked speaker behaviour. We conclude that visual information from a userÕs face is potentially beneficial for problem detection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problem detection in human–machine interactions based on facial expressions of users

Barkhuysen¹,

Krahmer²,

Swerts³

2005

Speech Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Krahmer et al [6] showed that people can correctly classify disconfirmation fragments of dialogs as positive or negative communication signals and concluded that prosodic features such as duration, intonation, and pitch are relevant for communication. The automatic recognition of user corrections in spoken dialog systems has been investigated by Hirschberg et al [7].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feedback interpretation based on facial expressions in human-robot interaction

Lang

Hanheide

Lohse

et al. 2009

RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In everyday conversation besides speech people also communicate by means of nonverbal cues. Facial expressions are one important cue, as they can provide useful information about the conversation, for instance, whether the interlocutor seems to understand or appears to be puzzled. Similarly, in human-robot interaction facial expressions also give feedback about the interaction situation.We present a Wizard of Oz user study in an object-teaching scenario where subjects showed several objects to a robot and taught the objects' names. Afterward, the robot should term the objects correctly. In a first evaluation, we let other people watch short video sequences of this study. They decided by looking at the face of the human whether the answer of the robot was correct (unproblematic situation) or incorrect (problematic situation). We conducted the experiments under specific conditions by varying the amount of temporal and visual context information and compare the results with related experiments described in the literature.

show abstract

“…Question (8.b), on the other hand, is not an attempt of the system to verify its assumptions, and hence it cannot represent incorrect system assumptions. A subsequent negative 6 The current discussion of negation is part of a wider research programme to study communication problems in human-machine conversation (see e.g., Krahmer et al, 2002). Given the current state of the art in speech technology, spoken communication with computers is still error-prone.…”

Section: Data and Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meaning, Intonation And Negation

Swerts¹,

Krahmer²

2008

Computing Meaning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper describes a methodology for the study of meaning and intonation, focusing both on what speakers can do (using production experiments) and on what hearers can do (using perception experiments). We show that such an experimental paradigm may yield interesting results from a semantical point of view by discussing the role intonation can play in the interpretation of negation phrases in natural language. We present empirical evidence for the existence of a set of prosodic differences between two kinds of negation, descriptive and metalinguistic. This distinction has been the subject of considerable debate in presupposition theory and also plays an important role in discussions about the division of labor between semantics and pragmatics. In general, we argue that intonation gives rise to 'soft constraints', and point out that an optimality theoretic framework may be suitable to model the relation between intonation and meaning. We outline some problems and prospects for an optimality theoretic account of meaning and intonation.

show abstract

The dual of denial: Two uses of disconfirmations in dialogue and their prosodic correlates

Cited by 26 publications

References 19 publications

Problem detection in human–machine interactions based on facial expressions of users

Problem detection in human–machine interactions based on facial expressions of users

Feedback interpretation based on facial expressions in human-robot interaction

Meaning, Intonation And Negation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About