Abstract
Natural language dialogue is a desirable method for human-robot interaction and human-computer interaction. Critical to the success of dialogue is the underlying model for common ground and the grounding process that establishes, adds to, and repairs shared understanding. The model of grounding for human-computer interaction should be informed by human-human dialogue. However, the processes involved in human-human grounding are under dispute within the research community. Three models have been proposed: alignment, a simple model that has been influential on dialogue system development, interpersonal synergy, an automatic coordination emerging from interaction, and perspective taking, a strategic interaction based on intentional coordination. Few studies have simultaneously evaluated these models. We tested the models’ ability to account for human-human performance in a complex collaborative task that stressed the grounding process. The results supported the perspective taking model over the synergy model and the alignment model, indicating the need to reassess the alignment model as a foundation for human-computer interaction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Marchick A (2018) The 2017 Voice Report. https://alpine.ai/the-2017-voice-report-by-alpine/. Accessed 16 May 2018
Anderson J, Rainie L (2018) The Internet of Things Will Thrive by 2025. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/05/14/internet-of-things/. Accessed 16 May 2018
Branigan H, Pickering M, Cleland A (2000) Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition 75(2):B13–B25
Clark H, Wilkes-Gibbs D (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22:1–39
Pickering M, Garrod S (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behav Brain Sci 27(2):169–190
Clark H, Krych M (2004) Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. J Memory Lang 50(1):62–81
Fusaroli R, Tylén K (2016) Investigating conversational dynamics: interactive alignment, interpersonal synergy, and collective task performance. Cogn Sci 40(1):145–171
Reitter D, Moore J (2014) Alignment and task success in spoken dialogue. J Memory Lang 76:29–46
Edlund J, Gustafson J, Heldner M, Hjalmarsson A (2008) Towards human-like spoken dialogue systems. Speech Commun 50(8):630–645
Brockmann, C., Isard, A., Oberlander, J. White, M.: Modelling alignment for affective dialogue. In: Proceedings of the workshop on adapting the interaction style to affective factors at the 10th international conference on user modeling (UM-05), pp 1–5 (2005)
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, pp 82–89
Janarthanam S, Lemon O (2009) A wizard-of-Oz environment to study referring expression generation in a situated spoken dialogue task. In: Proceedings of the 12th european workshop on natural language generation, ENLG, pp 94–97
Tomko S (2006) Improving User Interaction with Spoken Dialog Systems via Shaping. Ph.D. dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University
Varges S (2006) Overgeneration and ranking for spoken dialogue systems. In: INLG 2006, pp 3–5
Branigan H, Pickering M, Pearson J, McLean J (2010) Linguistic alignment between people and computers. J Pragmat 42(9):2355–2368
Louwerse M, Dale R, Bard E, Jeuniax P (2012) Behavior matching in multimodal communication is synchronized. Cogn Sci 36(8):1404–1426
Keysar B, Barr D, Balin J, Brauner J (2000) Taking perspective in conversation: the role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychol Sci 11(1):32–38
Gergle D, Kraut R, Fussell S (2004) Language efficiency and visual technology: minimizing collaborative effort with visual information. J Lang Soc Psych 23(4):491–517
Clark H (1996) Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fusaroli R, Raczaszek-Leonardi J, Tylén K (2014) Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas Psychol 32(1):147–156
Dale R, Spivey M (2005) Categorical recurrence analysis of child language. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 530–535
Orsucci F, Petrosino R, Paoloni G, Canestri L, Conte E, Reda M, Fulcheri M (2013) Prosody and synchronization in cognitive neuroscience. EPJ Nonlinear Biomed Phys 1(1):1–6
Dale R, Spivey M (2006) Unraveling the dyad: Using recurrence analysis to explore patterns of syntactic coordination between children and caregivers in conversation. Lang Learn 56(3):391–430
Rothwell C, Shalin VRG (2017) Quantitative models of human-human conversational grounding processes. In: Gunzelmann G, Howes A, Tebrink T, Davelaar EJ (eds) Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX (2017)
Baron R, Kenny D (1986) The Moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(6):1173–1182
Romigh G, Rothwell C, Greenwell B, Newman M (2016) Modeling uncertainty in spontaneous speech: lexical and acoustic features. J Aco Soc Am 140(4):3401–3401 (2016)
Moreno Coco M, Dale R (2014) Cross-recurrence quantification analysis of categorical and continuous time series: an R package. Front Psychol 5:1–14
Pennebaker J, Boyd R, Jordan K, Blackburn K (2015) The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Technical report. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
Mills GJ (2014) Dialogue in joint activity: Complementarity, convergence and conventionalization. New Ideas Psychol 32(1):158–173
Tenbrink T, Andonova E, Coventry K (2008) Negotiating spatial relationships in dialogue: the role of the addressee. In: Proceedings of LONDIAL - the 12th SEMDIAL workshop, pp 193–200
Brennan S, Schuhmann K, Batres K (2013) Collaboratively Setting perspectives and referring to locations across multiple contexts. In: Proceedings of the Pre-CogSci 2013 workshop on the production of referring expressions, Berlin, vol. 1, pp 1–6
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by the Air Force Research Laboratory Contract#: FA8650-14-D-6501. We thank Sid Horton for valuable discussions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rothwell, C.D., Shalin, V.L., Romigh, G.D. (2019). Searching for the Model of Common Ground in Human-Computer Dialogue. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 827. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96059-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96059-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96058-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96059-3
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)