Building applied natural language generation systems
Natural Language Engineering
Towards human-like spoken dialogue systems
Speech Communication
EXPROS: A Toolkit for Exploratory Experimentation with Prosody in Customized Diphone Voices
PIT '08 Proceedings of the 4th IEEE tutorial and research workshop on Perception and Interactive Technologies for Speech-Based Systems: Perception in Multimodal Dialogue Systems
Speaking without knowing what to say…or when to end
SIGdial '08 Proceedings of the 9th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue
Turn-taking and affirmative cue words in task-oriented dialogue
Turn-taking and affirmative cue words in task-oriented dialogue
Affirmative cue words in task-oriented dialogue
Computational Linguistics
Multiparty turn taking in situated dialog: study, lessons, and directions
SIGDIAL '11 Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2011 Conference
Resources for turn competition in overlapping talk
Speech Communication
Avatar and Dialog Turn-Yielding Phenomena
International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
A previous line of research suggests that interlocutors identify appropriate places to speak by cues in the behaviour of the preceding speaker. If used in combination, these cues have an additive effect on listeners' turn-taking attempts. The present study further explores these findings by examining the effect of such turn-taking cues experimentally. The objective is to investigate the possibilities of generating turn-taking cues with a synthetic voice. Thus, in addition to stimuli realized with a human voice, the experiment included dialogues where one of the speakers is replaced with a synthesis. The turn-taking cues investigated include intonation, phrase-final lengthening, semantic completeness, stereotyped lexical expressions and non-lexical speech production phenomena such as lexical repetitions, breathing and lip-smacks. The results show that the turn-taking cues realized with a synthetic voice affect the judgements similar to the corresponding human version and there is no difference in reaction times between these two conditions. Furthermore, the results support Duncan's findings: the more turn-taking cues with the same pragmatic function, turn-yielding or turn-holding, the higher the agreement among subjects on the expected outcome. In addition, the number of turn-taking cues affects the reaction times for these decisions. Thus, the more cues, the faster the reaction time.