2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2004.09.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Error-correction detection and response generation in a spoken dialogue system

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
23
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, neutral turns in the FAH dimension are rejected less than expected. Surprisingly, FrAng does not interact with AsrMis as observed in (Bulyko et al, 2005) but they use the full word error rate measure instead of the binary version used in this paper. Table 3: FAH -REJ interaction.…”
Section: Within Turn Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In contrast, neutral turns in the FAH dimension are rejected less than expected. Surprisingly, FrAng does not interact with AsrMis as observed in (Bulyko et al, 2005) but they use the full word error rate measure instead of the binary version used in this paper. Table 3: FAH -REJ interaction.…”
Section: Within Turn Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We perform our analysis on three high level dialogue factors: frustration/anger, certainty and correctness. Frustration and anger have been observed as the most frequent emotional class in many dialogue systems (Ang et al, 2002) and are associated with a higher word error rate (Bulyko et al, 2005). For this reason, we use the presence of emotions like frustration and anger as our first dialogue factor.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is important to point out that we have not allowed barge-in (the speech recognizer is inactive while the system is speaking). This makes for a less flexible dialogue than may be desirable, but in certain situations such as recognition error spirals [12] it may be advisable not to allow the user to interrupt while the system is trying to reach a stable, mutually understood dialogue state, especially if the user's perception of reliability in identity authentication rests partly on how much under control the dialogue is seen to be.…”
Section: Turn Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors in [8] proposed a system which integrates an error correction detection module with a modified dialogue strategy. In the study [9], a machine-learning approach employed automatically derived prosodic features, the speech recognition process, experimental conditions and the dialogue history to identify user corrections of speech recognition errors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%