Common ground, cooperation, and recipient design in human-computer interactions

Dombi, Judit; Sydorenko, Tetyana; Timpe‐Laughlin, Veronika

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2022.03.001

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the literature, for instance, Pardo et al (2007) discuss speaker diarization. This set the tone for large language models that we have today (Shah, 2015; Duta 2014; Dombi et al , 2022). These experts further unpacked when machines speak to each other to the currently commonly used IoT devices (Fatima et al , 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To our knowledge, no comprehensive research on the relevance of HMIs that uncover history from the past to the present while simultaneously covering future possibilities has Systematic literature review been conducted. There have been conceptual research (Vickery, 1984;Bi and Salvendy, 1994;Hoc, 2000;Seifert et al, 2022), case studies (Kattel et al, 2019;Rezaev and Tregubova, 2018), empirical testing (Lin and Cai, 2009;Lupu et al, 2015;Peruzzini et al, 2020) and exploratory research (Adriaensen et al, 2021;Dombi et al, 2022). SLR and bibliometric analysis techniques provide rigour by reducing researcher bias and enabling a more precise scope of review.…”

Section: Contribution and Originalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human machine interactions: from past to future- a systematic literature review

Jain,

Gupta,

Temperini

et al. 2024

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to provide insight into the evolving relationship between humans and machines, understanding its multifaceted impact on our lifestyle and landscape in the past as well as in the present, with implications for the near future. It uses bibliometric analysis combined with a systematic literature review to identify themes, trace historical developments and offer a direction for future human–machine interactions (HMIs). Design/methodology/approach To provide thorough coverage of publications from the previous four decades, the first section presents a text-based cluster bibliometric analysis based on 305 articles from 2,293 initial papers in the Scopus and Web of Science databases produced between 1984 and 2022. The authors used VOS viewer software to identify the most prominent themes through cluster identification. This paper presents a systematic literature review of 63 qualified papers using the PRISMA framework. Findings Next, the systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis revealed four major historical themes and future directions. The results highlight four major research themes for the future: from Taylorism to advanced technologies; machine learning and innovation; Industry 4.0, Society 5.0 and cyber–physical system; and psychology and emotions. Research limitations/implications There is growing anxiety among humankind that in the future, machines will overtake humans to replace them in various roles. The current study investigates the evolution of HMIs from their historical roots to Society 5.0, which is understood to be a human-centred society. It balances economic advancement with the resolution of social problems through a system that radically integrates cyberspace and physical space. This paper contributes to research and current limited knowledge by identifying relevant themes and offering scope for future research directions. A close look at the analysis posits that humans and machines complement each other in various roles. Machines reduce the mechanical work of human beings, bringing the elements of humanism and compassion to mechanical tasks. However, in the future, smart innovations may yield machines with unmatched dexterity and capability unthinkable today. Originality/value This paper attempts to explore the ambiguous and dynamic relationships between humans and machines. The present study combines systematic review and bibliometric analysis to identify prominent trends and themes. This provides a more robust and systematic encapsulation of this evolution and interaction, from Taylorism to Society 5.0. The principles of Taylorism are extended and redefined in the context of HMIs, especially advanced technologies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contribution and Originalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Human machine interactions: from past to future- a systematic literature review

Jain,

Gupta,

Temperini

et al. 2024

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, they may use certain keywords, potentially those produced by the system, to make themselves understood. Given the applicability of the recipient design model (Fischer, 2016) to human-human communication, especially in contexts where speakers do not share their first languages (L1s) (Dombi et al, 2022), the strategies that can be explained by this model will be considered relevant to the construct of L2 OCA in this study, along with other construct-relevant strategies reported in the assessment literature (e.g., Swain et al, 2009).…”

Section: Oral Language Use In Human-computer Interaction: Implication...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy use in a spoken dialog system–delivered paired discussion task: A stimulated recall study

Gokturk

Chukharev‐Hudilainen

2023

Language Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With recent technological advances, researchers have begun to explore the potential use of spoken dialog systems (SDSs) for L2 oral communication assessment. While several studies support the feasibility of building these systems for various types of oral tasks, research on the construct validity of SDS-delivered tasks is still limited. Thus, this study examines the cognitive processes engaged by an SDS-delivered paired discussion task, focusing on strategic competence, an essential component of L2 oral communication ability. Thirty adult test-takers completed a paired discussion task with an SDS acting as an interlocutor and provided stimulated recalls about their strategy use in the task. Three trained raters independently evaluated the test-takers’ oral task responses using a holistic rating scale devised for the task. Findings revealed the use of six categories of construct-relevant strategies during task performance. While no statistically significant differences were found in the use of these categories between high- and low-ability test-takers, marked differences were observed in the use of individual strategies within the categories between the test-takers at the two levels. These findings provide insight into how test-takers at different ability levels cognitively interact with SDS-delivered paired discussion tasks and offer implications for the design and validation of such tasks.

show abstract

“…# levels of lexical and syntactic choices in HCD have shown no partner effects when comparing human and computer partners (Cowan & Branigan, 2015;Cowan et al, 2015). More recently, a study comparing L2 language learner dialogues with either a fellow human or a computer interlocutor found instances of both audience design and egocentric production in interactions within the computer interlocutor condition (Dombi et al, 2022). Such results suggest that egocentric production processes may also influence interaction in HCD.…”

Section: Application To Hcd Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Amalberti et al, 1993;Brennan, 1998;Cowan et al, 2019a;Le Bigot et al, 2007;Luger & Sellen, 2016;Meddeb & Frenz-Belkin, 2010a) based on our perceptions of a computer interlocutor!s knowledge and capabilities as a dialogue partner (An et al, 2021;Branigan et al, 2011;Cowan et al, 2019a), akin to the concept of audience design in HHD (Bell, 1984). Yet, recent findings have shown that increased adaptation towards computer partners -compared to human partners -is sometimes absent from language production (Cowan & Branigan, 2015;Cowan et al, 2015), or appears alongside more egocentric language choices (e.g., Dombi et al, 2022), challenging the notion of allocentric processes (e.g., audience design through perspective taking) as the sole driver for language production in HCD. That is, rather than being driven solely by consideration for the computer!s perspective, perceived knowledge, and capabilities (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%