Untitled

Damianos, Laurie; Loehr, Dan; Burke, Carl D.; Hansen, Steve; Viszmeg, Michael

doi:10.1023/a:1022334530417

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there has been considerable research investigating the effects on human performance of using speech versus text/screen-based input at the interface (e.g., [6,14,17,32,43,44,46,87]), and the use of speech versus text/screen-based output (e.g., [9,45,53,60,81], little is known as to whether using voice or screen-based interactions, when conducting a cognitive task, impacts upon (i) the way human-human interactions progress and (ii) how the humans interact with the agent. Furthermore, most of this research has focused on single-user scenarios.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It's Good to Talk: A Comparison of Using Voice Versus Screen-Based Interactions for Agent-Assisted Tasks

Reicherts

Rogers

Capra

et al. 2022

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voice assistants have become hugely popular in the home as domestic and entertainment devices. Recently, there has been a move towards developing them for work settings. For example, Alexa for Business and IBM Watson for Business were designed to improve productivity, by assisting with various tasks, such as scheduling meetings and taking minutes. However, this kind of assistance is largely limited to planning and managing user's work. How might they be developed to do more by way of empowering people at work? Our research is concerned with achieving this by developing an agent with the role of a facilitator that assists users during an ongoing task. Specifically, we were interested in whether the modality in which the agent interacts with users makes a difference: How does a voice versus screen-based agent interaction affect user behavior? We hypothesized that voice would be more immediate and emotive, resulting in more fluid conversations and interactions. Here, we describe a user study that compared the benefits of using voice versus screen-based interactions when interacting with a system incorporating an agent, involving pairs of participants doing an exploratory data analysis task that required them to make sense of a series of data visualizations. The findings from the study show marked differences between the two conditions, with voice resulting in more turn-taking in discussions, questions asked, more interactions with the system and a tendency towards more immediate, faster-paced discussions following agent prompts. We discuss the possible reasons for why talking and being prompted by a voice assistant may be preferable and more effective at mediating human-human conversations and we translate some of the key insights of this research into design implications.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It's Good to Talk: A Comparison of Using Voice Versus Screen-Based Interactions for Agent-Assisted Tasks

Reicherts

Rogers

Capra

et al. 2022

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because speech is a natural act among humans, the ease to express thoughts in speech is relatively easier than in writing [41, 42]. In addition speaking provides opportunity to convey more content in very little time [43–45]. Machines, unlike humans, are not social entities, yet research in text-mining and natural language processing are advancing the possibility of more interactive systems that can help users query systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceiving an application ontology to model patient human papillomavirus vaccine counseling for dialogue management

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn the United States and parts of the world, the human papillomavirus vaccine uptake is below the prescribed coverage rate for the population. Some research have noted that dialogue that communicates the risks and benefits, as well as patient concerns, can improve the uptake levels. In this paper, we introduce an application ontology for health information dialogue called Patient Health Information Dialogue Ontology for patient-level human papillomavirus vaccine counseling and potentially for any health-related counseling.ResultsThe ontology’s class level hierarchy is segmented into 4 basic levels - Discussion, Goal, Utterance, and Speech Task. The ontology also defines core low-level utterance interaction for communicating human papillomavirus health information. We discuss the design of the ontology and the execution of the utterance interaction.ConclusionWith an ontology that represents patient-centric dialogue to communicate health information, we have an application-driven model that formalizes the structure for the communication of health information, and a reusable scaffold that can be integrated for software agents. Our next step will to be develop the software engine that will utilize the ontology and automate the dialogue interaction of a software agent.

show abstract