Discriminating Divergent/Convergent Phases of Meeting Using Non-Verbal Speech Patterns

Conference paper


The goal of this paper is to focus on non-verbal speech information during meeting and see if this information contains cues enabling the discrimination of meeting phases—divergent and convergent phases using decision trees. Group task experiments were conducted using a modified 20Q. The recorded speech was analyzed to identify various utterance pattern features—utterance frequency, length of utterance, turn-taking pattern frequency, etc. Discrimination trials were conducted on groups of friends, groups of strangers, and on both groups together using these features, and discrimination accuracy rates were obtained of 77.3%, 85.2% and 77.3%, respectively, in open tests. These results are quite good, considering that they are based on non-verbal speech information alone. Among the features relating to utterance patterns used in this work, we found that silence frequency and quasi-overlapping frequency were especially effective for discrimination. Our results did not find that group friendliness or task difficulty information contributed to effective discrimination of the meeting phases.


Decision Tree Task Difficulty Group Friendliness Prosodic Feature Discrimination Accuracy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amitani, S., and Hori, K. (2005): ‘A Method and a System for Supporting the Process of Knowledge Creation’, Trans. Information Processing Society of Japan, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 89–102.Google Scholar
  2. Bergstrom, T. and Karahalios, K. (2007): ‘Conversation Clock: Visualizing audio patterns in colocated groups’, Proc. 40th Hawaii international Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, 3, pp. 1317–1325.Google Scholar
  3. Bono, M., Suzuki, N., and Katagiri, Y. (2004): ‘Conversation: Do Interaction Behaviors Give Clues to Know Your Interest?’, Cognitive studies: bulletin of Jpn. Cognitive Science Society, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 214–227.Google Scholar
  4. Bono, M., and Takanashi, K. (2007): ‘Methodology for Analyzing Multi-Party Interaction: Overview of Analytic Units of Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication’, J. Jpn. Society for Artificial Intelligence, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 838–845.Google Scholar
  5. Cetin, O. and Shriberg, E. (2006): ‘Analysis of Overlaps in Meetings by Dialog Factors, Hot spots, Speakers, and Collection Site: Insights for Automatic Speech Recognition’, Proc. Interspeech 2006, pp. 293–296.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, Z., Takanashi, K., and Kawahara, T. (2008): ‘Analysis on Morphological and Prosodic Features of Aizuti and its Correlation to Conversation Mode in Poster Presentations’, Jpn. Society for Artificial Intelligence Technical Report, SIG-SLUD-A802, pp. 7–13.Google Scholar
  7. Conklin, J., and Begeman, M. L. (1988): ‘gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion’, Proc. CSCW’88, ACM Press, pp. 140–152.Google Scholar
  8. Daibo, I. (1998): Gesture and communication medium. Saiensu-sha, JP.Google Scholar
  9. DiMicco, J. M., Hollenbach, KJ, Pandolfo, A., and Bender, W. (2007): ‘The Impact of Increased Awareness while Face-to-Face. Special Issue on Awareness Systems Design’, Human-Computer Interaction. vol. 22, no. 1.Google Scholar
  10. Guilford, J.P. (1983): ‘Transformation: Abilities or functions’, J. Creative Behavior, 17, pp. 75–86.Google Scholar
  11. Hori, K. (2004): The ABC of facilitation. Nikkei Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Horiuchi, Y., Yoshino, A., Naka, M., et al. (1997): ‘The Chiba Map Task Dialogue Corpus Project’, Research reports of Faculty of Technology, vol. 48, no. 2, Chiba University, pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
  13. Ichino, J., Takeuchi, K. and Isahara, H. (2009): ‘Improvement of Member’s Concentration during Discussion’, Proc. HCII2009, LNCS 5617, pp. 59–68.Google Scholar
  14. Inspiration Software Inc.: ‘Inspiration’, http://www.inspiration.com/.
  15. Kim, T., Chang, A., Holland, L., and Pentland, A. (2008): ‘Meeting mediator: Enhancing Group Collaboration using Sociometric Feedback’, Proc. CSCW’08, ACM Press, pp. 457–466.Google Scholar
  16. Koiso, H., Horiuchi, Y., Tutiya, S., Ichikawa, A., and Den, Y. (1998): ‘An analysis of turn-taking and backchannels based on prosodic and syntactic features in Japanese map task dialogs’, Langurage and Speech, vol. 41, no. 3–4, pp. 295–321.Google Scholar
  17. Koiso, H., and Den, Y. (2000): ‘How is the Smooth Transition between Speakers Realized?’, Cognitive studies: bulletin of Jpn. Cognitive Science Society, vol. 7, no.1, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
  18. Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. (2004): ‘Collaboration: The Social Context of Theory Development’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahl, G. F. (1956): ‘Disturbances and silences in the patient’s speech in psychotherapy’, J. Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGuffin, L., and Olson, G. M. (1992): ‘ShrEdit: A shared electronic workspace’, CSMIL Technical Report 45, University of Michigan, Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Laboratory.Google Scholar
  21. Munemori, J., Horikiri, I, and Nagasawa, Y. (1994): ‘Groupware for New Idea Generation Support System (GUNGEN) and Its Application and Estimation to the Student Experiments of the Distributed and Cooperative KJ Method’, Trans. Information Processing Society of Japan, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 143–153.Google Scholar
  22. Nakai, Y. (2006): ‘Verbal and non-verbal engagement displays in a Japanese face-to-face conversation between two native speakers and two non-native speakers’, Bulletin of Center for Jpn. Language, 19, Waseda University, pp. 79–98.Google Scholar
  23. Nagaoka, C., Komori, M., Draguna Raluca Maria, et al. (2003): ‘Mutual Congruence of Vocal Behavior in Cooperative Dialogues’, Proc. Human Interface 2003, Japan, pp. 167–170.Google Scholar
  24. Nishimoto, K., Mase, K., and Nakatsu, R. (1999): ‘How an Autonomous Information Retrieval Agent Affects Divergent Thinking by a Group’, J. Jpn. Society for Artificial Intelligence, vol. 14, no. 1, 58–70.Google Scholar
  25. Ohsuga. T., Horiuchi, Y., Nishida, M., and Ichikawa, A. (2006): ‘Prediction of Turn-Taking from Prosody in Spontaneous Dialogue’, Trans. Jpn. Society for Artificial Intelligence, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olguin, D.O., Waber, B.N., Kim, T., et al. (2009): ‘Sensible organizations: Technology and methodology for automatically measuring organizational behavior’, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quinlan, J. R. (1992): C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, E.E. and Kight, S.S. (1959): ‘Effects of Feedback on Insight and Problem-Solving Efficiency in Training Groups’, J. Applied Psychology, 43, pp. 209–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stefik, M., Foster, G., Bobrow, D. G., Kahn, K., Lanning, S., and Suchman, L. (1987): ‘Beyond the chalkboard, Computer support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings’, Comm. ACM, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor, D. W., and Faust, W. I. (1952): ‘Twenty questions: Efficiency in problem solving as a function of size of group’, J. Experimental Psychology, 44, 360–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wrede, B and Shriberg, E. Spotting (2003): ‘“Hot Spots” in Meetings: Human Judgements and Prosodic Cues’, Proc. Eurospeech 2003, pp. 2805–2808.Google Scholar
  32. Wilson, D.S., Timmel, J. J., and Miller, R.M. (2004): ‘Cognitive cooperation: when the going gets tough, think as a group’, Human Nature, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Electro-CommunicationsChōfuJapan

Personalised recommendations