Advertisement

A Proposal for an Affective Design and User-Friendly Voice Agent

  • Heesung ParkEmail author
  • Jeongpyo Lee
  • Sowoon Bae
  • Daehee Park
  • Yenah Lee
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 876)

Abstract

In these days, most technical research conducted in relation to the voice agent which is mounted on mobile devices. However, research on the affection of users who use voice agents has not been studied yet. In this study, we assumed that users’ affective responses to three Voice Agents (Siri, Bixby, and Google Assistant) might be different. To do this, we asked the participants to perform four tasks (voice registration, checking information, using the specific functions, and joking). Hence, affective responses were measured by SAM (Self-assessment Manikin). Finally, we found out the difference of users’ affective responses to each voice agent. Then we propose design factors for user-friendly voice agent on the mobile.

Keywords

Mobile voice agent Affective design HCI 

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen, P.R., Oviatt, S.L.: The role of voice input for human-machine communication. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 92(22), 9921–9927 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halpern, Y., Hall, K.B., Schogol, V., Riley, M., Roark, B., Skobeltsyn, G., Bäuml, M.: Contextual prediction models for speech recognition. In: INTERSPEECH, pp. 2338–2342 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coward, S.W., Stevens, C.J.: Extracting meaning from sound: nomic mappings, everyday listening, and perceiving object size from frequency. Psychol. Rec. 54(3), 349–364 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang, T.Y., Huang, P., Chen, K.T., Wang, P.J.: Could Skype be more satisfying? a QoE-centric study of the FEC mechanism in an internet-scale VoIP system. IEEE Netw. 24(2), 42–48 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, K.T., Tu, C.C., Xiao, W.C.: Oneclick: a framework for measuring network quality of experience. In: INFOCOM 2009, pp. 702–710. IEEE, April 2009Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kostov, V., Fukuda, S.: Emotion in user interface, voice interaction system. In: 2000 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 2, pp. 798–803 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nass, C., Jonsson, I.M., Harris, H., Reaves, B., Endo, J., Brave, S., Takayama, L.: Improving automotive safety by pairing driver emotion and car voice emotion. In: CHI 2005 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1973–1976. ACM, April 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J.: Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Therapy Exper. Psychiatry 25(1), 49–59 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desmet, P., Overbeeke, K., Tax, S.: Designing products with added emotional value: development and application of an approach for research through design. Des. J. 4(1), 32–47 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lang, P.J.: Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: Computer applications (1980)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morris, J.D.: Observations: SAM: the self-assessment manikin; an efficient cross-cultural measurement of emotional response. J. Advertising Res. 35(6), 63–68 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heesung Park
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeongpyo Lee
    • 1
  • Sowoon Bae
    • 1
  • Daehee Park
    • 1
  • Yenah Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Samsung ElectronicsSeocho-gu, SeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations