Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
A Character Expression Model Affecting Spoken Dialogue Behaviors Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Influence of Syntax on the Perception of In-Vehicle Prompts and Driving Performance

verfasst von : Daniela Stier, Ulrich Heid, Patricia Kittel, Maria Schmidt, Wolfgang Minker

Erschienen in: Conversational Dialogue Systems for the Next Decade

Verlag: Springer Singapore

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Advances in Natural Language Generation technically enable dialog systems to output utterances of an arbitrary length. However, in order to provide the most efficient form of interaction, the complexity of voice output needs to be adapted to individual user needs and contexts. This paper investigates the influence of syntactic complexity on user experience and primary task performance with spoken interaction representing a secondary task, such as in the automotive context. For this purpose, we validate the approach of assessing user preferences concerning voice output. On this basis, we report the results of a user study, where participants interact with a simulated dialog system producing utterances of differing syntactic complexity. We conclude that the choice of a particular syntactic structure affects primary task performance. Equally, our analyses of user preferences suggest an influence on the perception of syntactic forms dependent on individual context and user characteristics.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel On the Use of Phonotactic Vector Representations with FastText for Language Identification
Nächstes Kapitel Learning Grammar in Confined Worlds
Fußnoten
1
Number of words, av. sentence length, prop. of words > 6 characters, LIX index, Idea Density [5].
 
2
The chosen procedure was not randomized in order to investigate the perception of syntactic forms and how user preferences change depending on the awareness of syntactic structures.
 
3
No significant difference between Parts 1 and 2 was revealed (Z = \(-1.95\), p = .051, r = .16).
 
4
Two participants were excluded from analyses due to technical problems in the driving simulator.
 
Literatur
1.
Aly A, Tapus A (2016) Towards an intelligent system for generating an adapted verbal and nonverbal combined behavior in human-robot interaction. Auton Robots 40(2):193–209CrossRef
2.
Branigan HP, Pickering MJ, Pearson J, McLean JF (2010) Linguistic alignment between people and computers. J Pragmat 42(9):2355–2368CrossRef
3.
Buschmeier H, Baumann T, Dosch B, Kopp S, Schlangen D (2012) Combining incremental language generation and incremental speech synthesis for adaptive information presentation. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 295–303
4.
Buschmeier H, Bergmann K, Kopp S (2009) An alignment-capable microplanner for natural language generation. In: Proceedings of the 12th European workshop on natural language generation. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 82–89
5.
Chand V, Baynes K, Bonnici L, Farias ST (2010) Analysis of idea density (AID): a manual. University of California at Davis
6.
Demberg V, Sayeed A, Mahr A, Müller C (2013) Measuring linguistically-induced cognitive load during driving using the ConTRe task. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM, pp 176–183
7.
Dijkstra P, Barelds DPH (2008) Do people know what they want: a similar or complementary partner? Evol Psychol 6(4), 147470490800600,406
8.
Engonopulos N, Sayeed A, Demberg V (2013) Language and cognitive load in a dual task environment. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, vol 35
9.
Hu Z, Tree JF, Walker MA (2018) Modeling linguistic and personality adaptation for natural language generation. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual SIGdial meeting on discourse and dialogue, pp 20–31
10.
Isbister K, Nass C (2000) Consistency of personality in interactive characters: verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. Int J Hum Comput Stud 53(2):251–267CrossRef
11.
Jokinen K (2003) Natural interaction in spoken dialogue systems. In: Proceedings of the workshop ontologies and multilinguality in user interfaces. Crete, pp 730–734
12.
Just MA, Keller TA, Cynkar J (2008) A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak. Brain Res 1205:70–80CrossRef
13.
Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C, Bruder C (2009) Technikaffinität erfassen- der Fragebogen TA-EG. Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme 8:196–201
14.
Lee KM, Peng W, Jin SA, Yan C (2006) Can robots manifest personality?: an empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction. J Commun 56(4):754–772CrossRef
15.
Li P, Merat N, Zheng Z, Markkula G, Li Y, Wang Y (2018) Does cognitive distraction improve or degrade lane keeping performance? Analysis of time-to-line crossing safety margins. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 57:48–58CrossRef
16.
Mairesse F, Walker MA (2010) Towards personality-based user adaptation: psychologically informed stylistic language generation. User Model User-Adap Inter 20(3):227–278CrossRef
17.
Mairesse F, Walker MA (2011) Controlling user perceptions of linguistic style: trainable generation of personality traits. Comput Linguist 37(3):455–488CrossRef
18.
Moon Y, Nass C (1996) How “real” are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Commun Res 23(6):651–674CrossRef
19.
Nass C, Moon Y, Fogg BJ, Reeves B, Dryer DC (1995) Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(2):223–239CrossRef
20.
Pickering MJ, Garrod S (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behav Brain Sci 27(2):169–190
21.
Pinter Y, Reichart R, Szpektor I (2016) Syntactic parsing of web queries with question intent. In: Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, pp. 670–680
22.
Rambow O, Bangalore S, Walker MA (2001) Natural language generation in dialog systems. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on human language technology research, HLT 2001. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 1–4
23.
Rammstedt B, Danner D (2016) Die Facettenstruktur des Big Five Inventory (BFI). Diagnostica
24.
Reiter E (1994) Has a consensus NL generation architecture appeared, and is it psycholinguistically plausible? In: Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on natural language generation. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 163–170
25.
Rieser V, Lemon O, Keizer S (2014) Natural language generation as incremental planning under uncertainty: adaptive information presentation for statistical dialogue systems. IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 22(5):979–994CrossRef
26.
Roth-Berghofer T, Cassens J, Sørmo F (2005) Goals and kinds of explanations in case-based reasoning. In: Wissensmanagement, pp 264–268
27.
Spieker P (1991) Natürlichsprachliche Erklärungen in technischen Expertensystemen. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kaiserslautern
28.
Stier D, Sigloch E (2019) Linguistic design of in-vehicle prompts in adaptive dialog systems: an analysis of potential factors involved in the perception of naturalness. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization. ACM, pp 191–195
29.
Strayer DL, Cooper JM, Turrill J, Coleman JR, Hopman RJ (2016) Talking to your car can drive you to distraction. Cogn Res Princ Implic 1(1):16CrossRef
30.
Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnston WA (2003) Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. J Exp Psychol Appl 9(1):23CrossRef
31.
Strayer DL, Turrill J, Cooper JM, Coleman JR, Medeiros-Ward N, Biondi F (2015) Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Hum Factors 57(8):1300–1324CrossRef
32.
Thomas P, Czerwinski M, McDuff D, Craswell N, Mark G (2018) Style and alignment in information-seeking conversation. In: Proceedings of the 2018 conference on human information interaction & retrieval. ACM, pp 42–51
33.
Villing J (2009) In-vehicle dialogue management – towards distinguishing between different types of workload. In: Proceedings of SiMPE, fourth workshop on speech in mobile and pervasive environments (to appear)
34.
Warren T, Gibson E (2002) The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85(1):79–112CrossRef
35.
Wickens CD (2002) Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 3(2):159–177CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The Influence of Syntax on the Perception of In-Vehicle Prompts and Driving Performance
verfasst von
Daniela Stier
Ulrich Heid
Patricia Kittel
Maria Schmidt
Wolfgang Minker
Copyright-Jahr
2021
Verlag
Springer Singapore
Buch
Conversational Dialogue Systems for the Next Decade

Print ISBN: 978-981-15-8394-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-15-8395-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8395-7_26

Neuer Inhalt

    Bildnachweise