emcawiki - User contributions [en]

Krummheuer2016a

2021-03-30T01:50:56Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Antonia Lina Krummheuer; Pirkko Raudaskoski;
|Title=Trying-out a walking help: Participation through situated learning in the adjustment and assessment of welfare technology
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Assessment; Brain injury; Distributed agency; Material adjustments; Multimodality; Participation; Situated learning; Welfare technology; AI reference list
|Key=Krummheuer2016a
|Year=2016
|Language=English
|Journal=Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics
|Volume=30
|Number=10
|Pages=812-831
|URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699206.2016.1209245
|DOI=10.1080/02699206.2016.1209245
|Abstract=This article contributes to the discussion of how people with limited communication means become active participants in the assessment of welfare technologies. The article combines ethnomethodology with insights from Science and Technology Studies and emphasises the situated and multimodal practices that constitute the trial as a joint activity in which the impaired person becomes a competent participant and independent walker. The analysis is based on video recordings from a case study in which a person with brain injury is trying out a new type of walking help. The trial is understood as a situated learning process in which the participants prepare, enact and assess the performance of the technology-supported walking. The article distinguishes two iterative phases in which the impaired person is constituted as an independent walker: the adjustment and assessment of a body–device relation and, further, the performance and assessment of the activity the user can perform.
}}

Alac2016a

2021-03-30T01:49:26Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Morana Alač;
|Title=Zeigt auf den Roboter und schüttelt dessen Hand: Intimität als situativ gebundene interaktionale Unterstützung von Humanoidtechnologien
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Social robots; AI; AI Reference List; Educational robots; Intimity; Humanoid technology; AI reference list
|Key=Alac2016a
|Year=2016
|Language=English
|Journal=Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft
|Volume=8
|Number=15
|Pages=41-71
|URL=https://zfmedienwissenschaft.de/heft/text/zeigt-auf-den-roboter-und-sch%C3%BCttelt-dessen-hand
|DOI=10.25969/mediarep/1902
|Note=Points to and Shakes the Robot’s Hand: Intimacy as Situated Interactional Maintenance of Humanoid Technology

This paper deals with the problem of digital media and intimacy by focusing on the domain of social robotics. Based in an ethnographic study of laboratories of social robotics, intimacy, in this context, concerns the situated maintenance of technology intended as ‹social›. The article points out how robots are enacted as social and how they gain their own agency through an intertwining of their bodies with multimodal and multisensory elements of multiparty action in specific situations of design and use. Drawing from video-recordings of everyday practice, the article indicates how this takes place in the interactional and sensory realm, focusing on coordination of gesture, talk, body orientation, tactile engagement, spatial organization and arrangements of things and human bodies in laboratory work. This idea of intimacy is contrasted with the «distance» that is characteristic of the situations where the human-robot relationship is reduced to the ocular mode and often results in violence or its spectacularization. The paper points out how considering a social robot in respect to the situation in which it is immersed and regarding those present at the scene has consequences for the commonly assumed idea of self and agency.

The English version of this article has been published as a web-extra here: http://www.zfmedienwissenschaft.de/online/points-and-shakes-robot%E2%80%99s-hand
|Abstract=Der Beitrag behandelt die Rolle von Intimität in Zusammenhang mit digitalen Medien anhand einer ethnografischen Studie im Bereich sozialer Robotik. Intimität betrifft in den Laboren der sozialen Robotik die situierte Unterstützung von Technologien mit ‹sozialen› Aufgaben. Es wird gezeigt, wie Roboter als soziale Objekte eingeführt werden und wie sie über diesen Prozess eine eigene agency erhalten – indem sie multimodal und multisensorisch mit menschlichen Akteuren interagieren. Grundlage der Studie sind Videoaufnahmen dieser Roboter im alltäglichen Einsatz. So wird gezeigt, auf welchen sensorischen Ebenen diese Interaktion stattfindet, insbesondere in der Koordination von Gesten, Rede, Körperorientierung, taktiler Interaktion, räumlicher Organisation und der Anordnung von Dingen und menschlichen Körpern in diesen spezifischen Laborsituationen. Diese Vorstellung von Intimität wird kontrastiert mit Mensch-Roboter-Anordnungen, in denen die Interaktion über den Blick, also distanziert, organisiert ist, was häufig in Gewalt oder Spektakularisierung resultiert. Der Beitrag zeigt, wie soziale Roboter in konkreten Begegnungen mit Menschen eingebunden sind und wie sich das auf Konzepte wie Selbst und agency auswirkt.
}}

Moore2015a

2021-03-30T01:46:49Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Robert J. Moore;
|Title=Automated transcription and Conversation Analysis
|Tag(s)=Transcription; EMCA; technology; methodology
|Key=Moore2015a
|Year=2015
|Language=English
|Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction
|Volume=48
|Number=3
|Pages=253–270
|URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058600
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2015.1058600
|Abstract=This article explores the potential of automated transcription technology for use in Conversation Analysis (CA). First, it applies auto-transcription to a classic CA recording and compares the output with Gail Jefferson's original transcript. Second, it applies auto-transcription to more recent recordings to demonstrate transcript quality under ideal conditions. And third, it examines the use of auto-transcripts for navigating big conversational data sets. The article concludes that although standard automated transcription technology lacks certain critical capabilities and exhibits varying levels of accuracy, it may still be useful for (a) providing first-pass transcripts, with silences, for further manual editing; and (b) scaling up data exploration and collection building by providing time-based indices requiring no manual effort to generate. Data are in American English.
}}

Ogden2015

2021-03-30T01:46:01Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Richard Ogden;
|Title=Data always invite us to listen again: arguments for mixing our methods
|Tag(s)=Transcription; EMCA; technology; methodology; phonetics;
|Key=Ogden2015
|Year=2015
|Language=English
|Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction
|Volume=48
|Number=3
|Pages=271–275
|URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058601
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2015.1058601
|Abstract=Moore (2015/this issue) claims, provocatively to some, that speech technology can be used as a labor-saving device. He points out that the production of transcriptions is time consuming, that some aspects of collection building can be handled with a degree of automation, and that some aspects of measurement can be made objective and reliable by using machines. I respond as a phonetician and interactional linguist. I want to argue that while automation is not always the right approach, working with large corpora can be healthy for our relation to data when used in the right ways.
}}

Ogden2015

2021-03-30T01:44:59Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Richard Ogden;
|Title=Data always invite us to listen again: arguments for mixing our methods
|Tag(s)=Transcription; EMCA; technology; methodology; phonetics; AI reference list;
|Key=Ogden2015
|Year=2015
|Language=English
|Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction
|Volume=48
|Number=3
|Pages=271–275
|URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058601
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2015.1058601
|Abstract=Moore (2015/this issue) claims, provocatively to some, that speech technology can be used as a labor-saving device. He points out that the production of transcriptions is time consuming, that some aspects of collection building can be handled with a degree of automation, and that some aspects of measurement can be made objective and reliable by using machines. I respond as a phonetician and interactional linguist. I want to argue that while automation is not always the right approach, working with large corpora can be healthy for our relation to data when used in the right ways.
}}

Moore2015a

2021-03-30T01:43:31Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Robert J. Moore;
|Title=Automated transcription and Conversation Analysis
|Tag(s)=Transcription; EMCA; technology; methodology; AI Reference List
|Key=Moore2015a
|Year=2015
|Language=English
|Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction
|Volume=48
|Number=3
|Pages=253–270
|URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058600
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2015.1058600
|Abstract=This article explores the potential of automated transcription technology for use in Conversation Analysis (CA). First, it applies auto-transcription to a classic CA recording and compares the output with Gail Jefferson's original transcript. Second, it applies auto-transcription to more recent recordings to demonstrate transcript quality under ideal conditions. And third, it examines the use of auto-transcripts for navigating big conversational data sets. The article concludes that although standard automated transcription technology lacks certain critical capabilities and exhibits varying levels of accuracy, it may still be useful for (a) providing first-pass transcripts, with silences, for further manual editing; and (b) scaling up data exploration and collection building by providing time-based indices requiring no manual effort to generate. Data are in American English.
}}

Friesen2009

2021-03-30T01:35:58Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Norm Friesen
|Title=Discursive psychology and educational technology: beyond the cognitive revolution
|Tag(s)=Discursive Psychology; Education; Technology; Technologized interaction; Cognition; AI reference list
|Key=Friesen2009
|Year=2009
|Language=English
|Journal=Mind, Culture & Activity
|Volume=16
|Number=2
|Pages=130–144
|URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10749030802707861
|DOI=10.1080/10749030802707861
|Abstract=As an alternative to dominant cognitive-constructivist approaches to educational technology, this article makes the case for what has been termed a discursive, or postcognitive, psychological research paradigm. It does so by adapting discursive psychological analyses of conversational activity to the study of educational technology use. It applies these modified techniques specifically to discursive interactions with chatbots or intelligent agents, and to the theories commonly associated with them. In doing so, it presents a critique of notions of human–computer “indistinguishability” or equality as they have been articulated from Alan Turing to Reeves and Nass, and it sketches an alternative account of the potential and limitations of this technology. In divergence from Turing and Reeves and Nass, human discourse generated through encounters with natural language interfaces is seen as emphasizing the issue of conversation itself, foregrounding the achievement of common discursive aims and projects, rather than illuminating the internal states of either interlocutor. Mind and cognition, correspondingly, are revealed as phenomena “accomplished” through contingent social activity, rather than as computational processes concealed within or distributed between mind and machine.
}}

Due2021a

2021-03-30T01:35:26Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Brian Due;
|Title=RoboDoc: Semiotic resources for achieving face-to-screenface formation with a telepresence robot
|Tag(s)=EMCA; F-formation; ethnomethodology; multimodal conversation analysis; telepresence robot; mobility; mediated interaction; Peircean semiotics; AI reference list
|Key=Due2021a
|Year=2021
|Language=English
|Journal=Semiotica
|Number=238
|Pages=253–278
|URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/semi/ahead-of-print/article-10.1515-sem-2018-0148/article-10.1515-sem-2018-0148.xml
|DOI=10.1515/sem-2018-0148
|Abstract=Face-to-face interaction is a primordial site for human activity and intersubjectivity. Empirical studies have shown how people reflexively exhibit a face orientation and work to establish a formation in which everyone is facing each other in local participation frameworks. The Face has also been described by, e.g., Levinas as the basis for a first ethical philosophy. Humans have established these Face-formations when interacting since time immemorial, but what happens when one of the participants is present through a telepresence robot? Based on ethnomethodology, Peircean/Goodwinian semiotics, multimodal conversation analysis and video data from a Danish residential rehabilitation center, the article shows the ways in which participants manage to interactively, cooperatively, and moment by moment achieve an F-formation in situ. The article contributes a detailed analysis and discussion of the kind of participant a telepresence robot is, in and through situated interactions: I propose that we term this participant the RoboDoc, given that it is an assemblage of a doctor who controls a robot. By focusing on the affordances of mobility, the article contributes to a renewed understanding of the importance and relevance of establishing Face-orientations in an increasingly technofied telepresence world.
}}

Wooffitt1994

2021-03-30T01:33:30Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Robin Wooffitt;
|Title=Application de la sociologie: Analyse de conversation pour l'étude de l'interaction ordinateur (simulé)-homme
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Analyse de conversation; Analyse de discours; Communication homme-ordinateur; Etudes de simulation; Exigences de saisie; AI reference list
|Key=Wooffitt1994
|Year=1994
|Language=French
|Journal=Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique
|Volume=43
|Number=1
|Pages=7–33
|URL=http://bms.sagepub.com/content/43/1/7
|DOI=10.1177/075910639404300103
|Abstract=Beaucoup de recherches récentes ont porté sur le dessin de systèmes de communication verbal homme-ordinateur conviviaux. Cependant, on rencontre un problème du type "la poule et l'oeuf': comment les dessinateurs de systèmes peuvent savoir de quelle manière les gens réagissent à un ordinateur qui parle et quelles seront leurs exigences; et comment peut-on construire un système expérimental avant de comprendre le comportement et les exigences des utilisateurs? Cet article présente deux réponses méthodologiques à ce dilemme trouvées par des chercheurs du département de sociologie de l'université de Surrey en Angleterre. On présente d'abord une simulation "sorcier d'Oz" ("Wizard of Oz"). Celle-ci implique l'utilisation d'une complice (le "sorcier") dont la voix est déguisée électroniquement comme celle d'un ordinateur qui parle. Des sujets de l'expérience croient qu'ils sont en interaction avec une machine. Ces échanges sont enregistrés et ensuite analysés pour faire ressortir des informations concernant les exigences des utilisateurs et les compétences communicatives nécessaires. Ensuite, il y a une discussion sur l'adéquation d'une approche qualitative de l'analyse de conversation pour l'étude des données collectées par ces expériences. Les sections analytiques de l'article concernent deux stratégies de communication utilisées par des sujets pour identifier et gérer des sources possible de problèmes dans l'échange avec le "système". Cette analyse examine l'organisation de ces stratégies et discute de leurs apports à la communication.
}}

Wallis2008

2021-03-30T01:31:47Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Peter Wallis
|Title=Revisiting the DARPA communicator data using conversation analysis
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversational machines; politeness; social norms; ethnomethodology; conversation analysis; interactive voice response; virtual characters; AI reference list
|Key=Wallis2008
|Year=2008
|Journal=Interaction Studies
|Volume=9
|Number=3
|Pages=434–457
|URL=http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/is.9.3.05wal
|DOI=10.1075/is.9.3.05wal
|Abstract=The state of the art in human computer conversation leaves something to be desired and, indeed, talking to a computer can be down-right annoying. This paper describes an approach to identifying “opportunities for improvement” in these systems by looking for abuse in the form of swear words. The premise is that humans swear at computers as a sanction and, as such, swear words represent a point of failure where the system did not behave as it should. Having identified where things went wrong, we can work backward through the transcripts and, using conversation analysis (CA) work out how things went wrong. Conversation analysis is a qualitative methodology and can appear quite alien — indeed unscientific — to those of us from a quantitative background. The paper starts with a description of Conversation analysis in its modern form, and then goes on to apply the methodology to transcripts of frustrated and annoyed users in the DARPA Communicator project. The conclusion is that there is at least one species of failure caused by the inability of the Communicator systems to handle mixed initiative at the discourse structure level. Along the way, I hope to demonstrate that there is an alternative future for computational linguistics that does not rely on larger and larger text corpora.
}}

Moore2018

2021-03-30T01:27:52Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
|Author(s)=Robert J. Moore;
|Title=A natural conversation framework for conversational UX design
|Editor(s)=Robert J. Moore; Margaret H. Szymanski; Raphael Arar; Guang-Jie Ren
|Tag(s)=EMCA; HCI; UX; Design; AI reference list
|Key=Moore2018
|Publisher=Springer
|Year=2018
|Language=English
|Address=Cham
|Booktitle=Studies in Conversational UX Design
|Pages=181–204
|URL=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-95579-7_9
|DOI=10.1007/978-3-319-95579-7_9
|Abstract=With the rise in popularity of chatbot and virtual-agent platforms, from Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, IBM and more, a new design discipline is emerging: Conversational UX Design. While it is easy to create natural language interfaces with these platforms, creating an effective and engaging user experience is still a major challenge. Natural language processing (NLP) techniques have given us powerful tools for analyzing bits of language, but they do not tell us how to string those bits together to make a natural conversation. Natural conversation has a sequential organization that is independent of the organization of language itself. At IBM Research-Almaden, we are addressing this user experience (UX) design challenge by applying formal, qualitative models from the field of Conversation Analysis to the design of conversational agents. Our Natural Conversation Framework (NCF) is a design framework for conversational user experience. It provides a library of generic conversational UX patterns that are inspired by natural human conversation patterns and that are agnostic to platform and input method (text or voice). This chapter will cover the four components of our Natural Conversation Framework: (1) an interaction model, (2) common activity modules, (3) a navigation method and (4) a set of sequence metrics. In addition, it will briefly outline a general process for designing conversational UX: from mock-up to working prototype.
}}

Stokoe2020

2021-03-30T01:23:00Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Elizabeth Stokoe; Rein Ove Sikveland; Saul Albert; Magnus Hamann; William Housley;
|Title=Can humans simulate talking like other humans? Comparing simulated clients to real customers in service inquiries
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversational agents; mystery shoppers; requests; service encounters; simulated clients; veterinarian practice; institutional interaction; simulation; commercial encounters; AI reference list
|Key=Stokoe2020
|Year=2020
|Language=English
|Journal=Discourse Studies
|Volume=22
|Number=1
|Pages=87–109
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461445619887537
|DOI=10.1177/1461445619887537
|Abstract=How authentic are inquiry calls made by simulated clients, or ‘mystery shoppers’, to service organizations, when compared to real callers? We analysed 48 simulated and 63 real inquiry calls to different veterinary practices in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The data were transcribed for conversation analysis, as well as coded for a variety of call categories including reason for the call, call outcome and turn design features. Analysis revealed systematic differences between real and simulated calls in terms of (1) reasons for the call, call outcome and call duration and (2) how callers refer to their pets in service requests and follow-up questions about their animal. Our qualitative analyses were supported with statistical summaries and tests. The findings reveal the limitations of mystery shopper methodology for the assessment of service provision. We also discuss the implications of the findings for the use of simulated encounters and the development of conversational agents.
}}

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T09:06:35Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=Artificial+intelligence&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Reference list of EMCA studies on AI ==
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=AI+reference+list&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Export ==
*[http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=EMCA+AI&bib=emca.bib&RSS EMCA AI RSS Feed]
*{{#ask: [[Category:BibEntry]] [[BibTag::Artificial intelligence]] | searchlabel=Download EMCA AI bibliography database as BibTex
| ?BibAuthor=author
| ?BibVolume=volume
| ?BibYear=year
| ?BibTitle=title
| ?BibType=type
| ?BibJournal=journal
| ?BibURL=url
| ?BibDOI=doi
| ?BibBooktitle=booktitle
| ?BibChapter=chapter
| ?BibEdition=edition
| ?BibEditor=editor
| ?BibHowpublished=howpublished
| ?BibInstitution=institution
| ?BibKey=crossref
| ?BibMonth=month
| ?BibNote=note
| ?BibNumber=number
| ?BibOrganization=organization
| ?BibPages=pages
| ?BibPublisher=publisher
| ?BibSchool=school
| ?BibSeries=series
| ?BibAbstract=abstract
| ?BibTag=keywords
| format=bibtex
}}

== Adding to the database ==
* Please consider [[Adding bibliography entries|adding new entries to the database]].
* To add items to the EMCA AI tag/keyword list , use the '''EMCA AI''' tag when adding entries.
* Back to the [[Emca bibliography database]]

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T08:15:26Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=Artificial+intelligence&&AI&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Reference list of EMCA studies on AI ==
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=AI+reference+list&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Export ==
*[http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=EMCA+AI&bib=emca.bib&RSS EMCA AI RSS Feed]
*{{#ask: [[Category:BibEntry]] [[BibTag::Artificial intelligence]] | searchlabel=Download EMCA AI bibliography database as BibTex
| ?BibAuthor=author
| ?BibVolume=volume
| ?BibYear=year
| ?BibTitle=title
| ?BibType=type
| ?BibJournal=journal
| ?BibURL=url
| ?BibDOI=doi
| ?BibBooktitle=booktitle
| ?BibChapter=chapter
| ?BibEdition=edition
| ?BibEditor=editor
| ?BibHowpublished=howpublished
| ?BibInstitution=institution
| ?BibKey=crossref
| ?BibMonth=month
| ?BibNote=note
| ?BibNumber=number
| ?BibOrganization=organization
| ?BibPages=pages
| ?BibPublisher=publisher
| ?BibSchool=school
| ?BibSeries=series
| ?BibAbstract=abstract
| ?BibTag=keywords
| format=bibtex
}}

== Adding to the database ==
* Please consider [[Adding bibliography entries|adding new entries to the database]].
* To add items to the EMCA AI tag/keyword list , use the '''EMCA AI''' tag when adding entries.
* Back to the [[Emca bibliography database]]

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T08:15:08Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=Artificial+intelligence||AI&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Reference list of EMCA studies on AI ==
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=AI+reference+list&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Export ==
*[http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=EMCA+AI&bib=emca.bib&RSS EMCA AI RSS Feed]
*{{#ask: [[Category:BibEntry]] [[BibTag::Artificial intelligence]] | searchlabel=Download EMCA AI bibliography database as BibTex
| ?BibAuthor=author
| ?BibVolume=volume
| ?BibYear=year
| ?BibTitle=title
| ?BibType=type
| ?BibJournal=journal
| ?BibURL=url
| ?BibDOI=doi
| ?BibBooktitle=booktitle
| ?BibChapter=chapter
| ?BibEdition=edition
| ?BibEditor=editor
| ?BibHowpublished=howpublished
| ?BibInstitution=institution
| ?BibKey=crossref
| ?BibMonth=month
| ?BibNote=note
| ?BibNumber=number
| ?BibOrganization=organization
| ?BibPages=pages
| ?BibPublisher=publisher
| ?BibSchool=school
| ?BibSeries=series
| ?BibAbstract=abstract
| ?BibTag=keywords
| format=bibtex
}}

== Adding to the database ==
* Please consider [[Adding bibliography entries|adding new entries to the database]].
* To add items to the EMCA AI tag/keyword list , use the '''EMCA AI''' tag when adding entries.
* Back to the [[Emca bibliography database]]

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T08:13:28Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T07:36:05Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T07:35:41Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=Artificial+intelligence&AI&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Reference list of EMCA studies on AI ==
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=AI+reference+list&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Export ==
*[http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=EMCA+AI&bib=emca.bib&RSS EMCA AI RSS Feed]
*{{#ask: [[Category:BibEntry]] [[BibTag::Artificial intelligence]] | searchlabel=Download EMCA AI bibliography database as BibTex
| ?BibAuthor=author
| ?BibVolume=volume
| ?BibYear=year
| ?BibTitle=title
| ?BibType=type
| ?BibJournal=journal
| ?BibURL=url
| ?BibDOI=doi
| ?BibBooktitle=booktitle
| ?BibChapter=chapter
| ?BibEdition=edition
| ?BibEditor=editor
| ?BibHowpublished=howpublished
| ?BibInstitution=institution
| ?BibKey=crossref
| ?BibMonth=month
| ?BibNote=note
| ?BibNumber=number
| ?BibOrganization=organization
| ?BibPages=pages
| ?BibPublisher=publisher
| ?BibSchool=school
| ?BibSeries=series
| ?BibAbstract=abstract
| ?BibTag=keywords
| format=bibtex
}}

== Adding to the database ==
* Please consider [[Adding bibliography entries|adding new entries to the database]].
* To add items to the EMCA AI tag/keyword list , use the '''EMCA AI''' tag when adding entries.
* Back to the [[Emca bibliography database]]

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T07:30:07Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T07:28:37Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=Artificial+intelligence|AI&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Reference list of EMCA studies on AI ==
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=AI+reference+list&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Export ==
*[http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=EMCA+AI&bib=emca.bib&RSS EMCA AI RSS Feed]
*{{#ask: [[Category:BibEntry]] [[BibTag::Artificial intelligence]] | searchlabel=Download EMCA AI bibliography database as BibTex
| ?BibAuthor=author
| ?BibVolume=volume
| ?BibYear=year
| ?BibTitle=title
| ?BibType=type
| ?BibJournal=journal
| ?BibURL=url
| ?BibDOI=doi
| ?BibBooktitle=booktitle
| ?BibChapter=chapter
| ?BibEdition=edition
| ?BibEditor=editor
| ?BibHowpublished=howpublished
| ?BibInstitution=institution
| ?BibKey=crossref
| ?BibMonth=month
| ?BibNote=note
| ?BibNumber=number
| ?BibOrganization=organization
| ?BibPages=pages
| ?BibPublisher=publisher
| ?BibSchool=school
| ?BibSeries=series
| ?BibAbstract=abstract
| ?BibTag=keywords
| format=bibtex
}}

== Adding to the database ==
* Please consider [[Adding bibliography entries|adding new entries to the database]].
* To add items to the EMCA AI tag/keyword list , use the '''EMCA AI''' tag when adding entries.
* Back to the [[Emca bibliography database]]

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T07:27:20Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=Artificial+intelligence,AI&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Reference list of EMCA studies on AI ==
{{#widget:Iframe
|url=http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=AI+reference+list&bib=emca.bib
|border=0
}}

== Export ==
*[http://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=EMCA+AI&bib=emca.bib&RSS EMCA AI RSS Feed]
*{{#ask: [[Category:BibEntry]] [[BibTag::Artificial intelligence]] | searchlabel=Download EMCA AI bibliography database as BibTex
| ?BibAuthor=author
| ?BibVolume=volume
| ?BibYear=year
| ?BibTitle=title
| ?BibType=type
| ?BibJournal=journal
| ?BibURL=url
| ?BibDOI=doi
| ?BibBooktitle=booktitle
| ?BibChapter=chapter
| ?BibEdition=edition
| ?BibEditor=editor
| ?BibHowpublished=howpublished
| ?BibInstitution=institution
| ?BibKey=crossref
| ?BibMonth=month
| ?BibNote=note
| ?BibNumber=number
| ?BibOrganization=organization
| ?BibPages=pages
| ?BibPublisher=publisher
| ?BibSchool=school
| ?BibSeries=series
| ?BibAbstract=abstract
| ?BibTag=keywords
| format=bibtex
}}

== Adding to the database ==
* Please consider [[Adding bibliography entries|adding new entries to the database]].
* To add items to the EMCA AI tag/keyword list , use the '''EMCA AI''' tag when adding entries.
* Back to the [[Emca bibliography database]]

EMCA & Artificial Intelligence

2021-02-24T07:26:21Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

Yamazaki-etal2013

2021-02-24T07:13:24Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Akiko Yamazaki; Keiichi Yamazaki; Keiko Ikeda; Matthew Burdelski; Mihoko Fukushima; Tomoyuki Suzuki; Miyuki Kurihara; Yoshinori Kuno; Yoshinori Kobayashi;
|Title=Interactions between a quiz robot and multiple participants: Focusing on speech, gaze and bodily conduct in Japanese and English speakers
|Tag(s)=EMCA; coordination of verbal and non-verbal actions; robot gaze; comparison between English and Japanese; human-robot interaction (HRI); transition relevance place (TRP); conversation analysis; AI reference list
|Key=Yamazaki-etal2013
|Year=2013
|Journal=Interaction Studies
|Volume=14
|Number=3
|Pages=366–389
|URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/is.14.3.04yam
|DOI=10.1075/is.14.3.04yam
|Abstract=This paper reports on a quiz robot experiment in which we explore similarities and differences in human participant speech, gaze, and bodily conduct in responding to a robot’s speech, gaze, and bodily conduct across two languages. Our experiment involved three-person groups of Japanese and English-speaking participants who stood facing the robot and a projection screen that displayed pictures related to the robot’s questions. The robot was programmed so that its speech was coordinated with its gaze, body position, and gestures in relation to transition relevance places (TRPs), key words, and deictic words and expressions (e.g. this, this picture) in both languages. Contrary to findings on human interaction, we found that the frequency of English speakers’ head nodding was higher than that of Japanese speakers in human-robot interaction (HRI). Our findings suggest that the coordination of the robot’s verbal and non-verbal actions surrounding TRPs, key words, and deictic words and expressions is important for facilitating HRI irrespective of participants’ native language.
}}

Wilf2019

2021-02-24T07:13:01Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Eitan Wilf
|Title=Separating noise from signal: The ethnomethodological uncanny as aesthetic pleasure in human‐machine interaction in the United States
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Human-machine interaction; Uncanny; Robotics; Animation; Cybernetics; AI reference list
|Key=Wilf2019
|Year=2019
|Language=English
|Journal=American Ethnologist
|Volume=46
|Number=2
|Pages=202-213
|URL=https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/amet.12761
|DOI=https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12761
|Abstract=Because ethnomethodology was founded in cybernetics, it institutionalized the idea that interactants strive to maintain interactional order and compensate for disorder through negative feedback mechanisms such as “repair work.” This idea informed a key strand in the study of human‐machine interaction in the United States, especially the idea that humans are inclined to repair the gaps in machines’ behavior and thus sustain the feeling that they are interacting with intentional entities. In some situations, however, humans prefer to expose and even exacerbate machines’ interactional incompetence. Such a preference manifests the aesthetic category of the uncanny, here theorized as the sudden awareness of the material foundations of one's immediate world, an awareness that emerges when those foundations become “noisy” and begin to reflexively point to themselves.
}}

Velkovska2020a

2021-02-24T07:12:21Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Julia Velkovska; Moustafa Zouinar; Clair-Antoine Veyrier;
|Title=Les relations aux machines "conversationnelles": Vivre avec les assistants vocaux à la maison
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Artificial intelligence; Voice assistants; Human-machine interaction; User's work; Ethnomethodology; Video ethnography; AI reference list
|Key=Velkovska2020a
|Year=2020
|Language=French
|Journal=Réseaux
|Volume=220-221
|Number=2
|Pages=47–79
|URL=https://www.cairn.info/revue-reseaux-2020-2-page-47.htm
|DOI=10.3917/res.220.0047
|Note=Relationships with “conversational” machines: Living with voice assistants at home
|Abstract=L’article propose une contribution empirique à la sociologie de l’Intelligence Artificielle conversationnelle à partir d’une enquête vidéo-ethnographique sur les usages quotidiens d’assistants vocaux dans vingt-deux foyers français, s’étalant sur trois ans. Les résultats battent en brèche les idées reçues portées dans l’espace public par leurs promoteurs qui envisagent les interactions avec ces dispositifs comme des conversations naturelles, invisibilisant ainsi la complexité des usages réels. Nous proposons plutôt de les décrire comme des simulacres de conversation qui créent une « illusion de conversation », ainsi qu’une « illusion d’intuitivité », sources de troubles interactionnels. Nous mettons en évidence l’important « travail » que les utilisateurs mettent en œuvre pour découvrir et interagir avec ces dispositifs. L’enquête montre une nouvelle facette de ce travail de l’utilisateur, spécifique à la multiplication des services vocaux, à savoir la gestion et la coordination de plusieurs agents conversationnels. Le travail de l’utilisateur constitue la face invisible des relations aux machines conversationnelles. L’article décrit également les processus d’appropriation qui installent progressivement les assistants vocaux dans les activités et les routines quotidiennes. Il identifie les formes de transformation des pratiques et l’inscription sociale de ces machines dans les collectifs familiaux, caractérisée par une asymétrie des usages.

This article makes an empirical contribution to the sociology of conversational artificial intelligence by presenting a video-ethnographic research on the everyday use of voice assistants in twenty-two French households over a span of three years. The results belie the ideas conveyed in the public space by the proponents of these devices, who consider the interactions with them as natural conversations, thus obfuscating the complexity of real uses. We suggest describing these interactions as ‘simulacrum’ of conversation that creates an “illusion of conversation” as well as an “illusion of intuitiveness”, which are sources of interactional problems. We highlight the significant “work” that users make to discover and interact with these devices. This research highlights a new facet of user’s work characteristic of the proliferation of voice services: that of managing and coordinating multiple conversational agents. This user work makes up the invisible side of relationships with conversational machines. The article also describes the appropriation processes that gradually establish voice assistants in everyday activities and routines. It identifies the forms of transformation of practices and the social inscription of these machines within family groups, characterized by an asymmetry of uses.
}}

Velkovska2020

2021-02-24T07:11:46Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Julia Velkovska; Marc Relieu;
|Title=Pourquoi ethnographier les interactions avec les agents conversationnels ?
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversational agents; Ethnography; AI reference list
|Key=Velkovska2020
|Year=2020
|Language=French
|Journal=Réseaux
|Volume=2020/2-3
|Number=220-221
|Pages=9-20
|URL=https://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_ARTICLE=RES_220_0009
|Note=Doing ethnography of interactions with conversational agents
}}

Suchman-Trigg1993

2021-02-24T07:10:46Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
|Author(s)=Lucy A. Suchman; Randy H. Trigg;
|Title=Artificial intelligence as craftwork
|Editor(s)=Seth Chaiklin; Jean Lave;
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Artificial intelligence; AI reference list
|Key=Suchman-Trigg1993
|Publisher=Cambridge University Press
|Year=1993
|Language=English
|Chapter=6
|Address=Cambridge
|Booktitle=Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activities and Context
|Pages=44–178
|URL=https://www.cambridge.org/nl/academic/subjects/psychology/social-psychology/understanding-practice-perspectives-activity-and-context?format=PB
|Series=Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives
}}

Sormani2020

2021-02-24T07:10:02Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Philippe Sormani;
|Title=‘DIY AI’? Practising kit assembly, locating critical inquiry
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Artificial intelligence; AI reference list
|Key=Sormani2020
|Year=2020
|Language=English
|Journal=Ethnographic Studies
|Number=17
|Pages=60-80
|URL=https://zenodo.org/record/4050539#.X3lMAWgzaUl
|DOI=10.5281/zenodo.4050539
|Abstract=This paper presents a reflexive ethnography of ‘DIY AI’ underway. Part 1 examines a promotional video of Google’s ‘AIY Vision Kit’, its ‘do-it-yourself intelligent camera’, running on a Raspberry Pi computer and fitting into an 4.7´7.5´7.6 cm cardboard box. Part 2 of the paper, in turn, reports on our initial effort at kit assembly with the help of the user manual. In particular, I shall home in on our ‘turn it on’ attempt, as a first ‘step condition’ to operate the assembled kit ‘intelligently’—that is, for ‘experiment[ing] with image recognition using neural networks’ (Google 2018). The reflexive ethnography pursues two aims. First, it shall make explicit (some of) the ‘vulgar enabling practices’ (Button and Sharrock 1995) of the probed ‘intelligent camera’. Second, the ethnography will revisit the interplay between ‘technical work and critical inquiry’ (Lynch 1982) by locating how, when, and why the former invited the latter in situ. Recent reflection on critical inquiry in and across STS (e.g., Mirowski 2020), algorithm studies (e.g., Mackenzie 2017), and social and cultural studies more broadly (e.g., Tsilipakos 2018), will be practically indexed and recast accordingly. So will critical inquiry in matters of ‘DIY (AI)’ more specifically.
}}

Sahin2017

2021-02-24T07:09:35Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INPROCEEDINGS
|Author(s)=Merve Sahin; Marc Relieu; Aurélien Francillon;
|Title=Using chatbots against voice spam: Analyzing Lenny’s effectiveness
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Telephony; Fraud; AI; Chatbots; Conversational AI; AI reference list
|Key=Sahin2017
|Publisher=USENIX
|Year=2017
|Language=English
|Address=Santa Clara
|Booktitle=SOUPS'17: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security
|Pages=319–337
|URL=http://s3.eurecom.fr/docs/soups17_sahin.pdf
|Abstract=A new countermeasure recently appeared to fight back against unwanted phone calls (such as, telemarketing, survey or scam calls), which consists in connecting back the telemarketer with a phone bot (“robocallee”) which mimics a real persona. Lenny is such a bot (a computer program) which plays a set of pre-recorded voice messages to interact with the spammers. Although not based on any sophisticated artificial intelligence, Lenny is surprisingly effective in keeping the conversation going for tens of minutes. Moreover, it is clearly recognized as a bot in only 5% of the calls recorded in our dataset. In this paper, we try to understand why Lenny is so successful in dealing with spam calls. To this end, we analyze the recorded conversations of Lenny with various types of spammers. Among 487 publicly available call recordings, we select 200 calls and transcribe them using a commercial service. With this dataset, we first explore the spam ecosystem captured by this chatbot, presenting several statistics on Lenny’s interaction with spammers. Then, we use conversation analysis to understand how Lenny is adjusted with the sequential context of such spam calls, keeping a natural flow of conversation. Finally, we discuss a range of research and design issues to gain a better understanding of chatbot conversations and to improve their efficiency.
}}

Rolletetal2017

2021-02-24T07:08:55Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
|Author(s)=Nicolas Rollet; Varun Jain; Christian Licoppe; Laurence Devillers;
|Title=Towards Interactional Symbiosis: Epistemic Balance and Co-presence in a Quantified Self Experiment
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; epistemics; human-robot interaction; preference; quantified self; robots; AI reference list
|Key=Rolletetal2017
|Year=2017
|Booktitle=Lecture Notes in Computer Science
|Pages=143–154
|URL=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-57753-1\_13
|DOI=10.1007/978-3-319-57753-1_13
|Abstract=In the frame of an experiment dealing with quantified-self and re- flexivity, we collected audio-video data that provide us with material to discuss the ways in which the participants would work out social synergy through co- presence management and epistemic balance – accounting for their orientation towards the familiar symbiotic nature of human interactions. Following a Con- versational Analysis perspective, we believe that detailed analysis of interactio- nal behaviors offers opportunities for socially interactive robots design impro- vements, that is: identify and reproduce human ordinary skills in order to make the machines more adaptable.
}}

Rollet2020

2021-02-24T07:08:23Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Nicolas Rollet; Chloé Clavel
|Title=“Talk to you later”: Doing social robotics with conversation analysis. Towards the development of an automatic system for the prediction of disengagement
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Closings; Conversation Analysis; Annotation schemes; Engagement; Machine learning; Multimodality; Social robotics; Transcription; AI reference list
|Key=Rollet2020
|Year=2020
|Language=English
|Journal=Interaction Studies
|Volume=21
|Number=2
|Pages=268-292
|URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/is.19001.roll
|DOI=10.1075/is.19001.roll
|Abstract=This article presents an applied discussion of the possibility of integrating conversation analysis (CA) methodology into that of machine learning. The aim is to improve the detection of that which resembles disengagement in the interaction between a robot and a human. We offer a novel analytical assemblage at the heart of the two disciplines, and namely on the level of the annotation schemes provided by conversation analysis transcription methods. First, we demonstrate that the need for a stable structure in establishing an interaction scenario and in designing robot behaviours does not prevent the emergence of ordinariness or creativity among the participants engaged in this interaction. Secondly, based on an actual case, we emphasize the possibility of systematicness in CA transcription to support the choice (a) of the categories targeted by prediction methods and defined by the annotation scheme, and (b) of the verbal and non-verbal features used to create prediction models.
}}

Robins-etal2004

2021-02-24T07:08:00Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Ben Robins; Paul Dickerson; Penny Stribling; Kerstin Dautenhahn;
|Title=Robot-mediated joint attention in children with autism: a case study in robot-human interaction
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Robotics; autism; learning; therapy; Conversation Analysis; toys; joint attention; AI reference list
|Key=Robins-etal2004
|Year=2004
|Journal=Interaction Studies
|Volume=5
|Number=2
|Pages=161–198
|URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/is.5.2.02rob
|DOI=10.1075/is.5.2.02rob
|Abstract=Interactive robots are used increasingly not only in entertainment and service robotics, but also in rehabilitation, therapy and education. The work presented in this paper is part of the Aurora project, rooted in assistive technology and robot-human interaction research. Our primary aim is to study if robots can potentially be used as therapeutically or educationally useful ‘toys’. In this paper we outline the aims of the project that this study belongs to, as well as the specific qualitative contextual perspective that is being used.We then provide an in-depth evaluation, in part using Conversation Analysis (CA), of segments of trials where three children with autism interacted with a robot as well as an adult. We focus our analysis primarily on joint attention which plays a fundamental role in human development and social understanding. Joint attention skills of children with autism have been studied extensively in autism research and therefore this behaviour provides a relevant focus for our study. In the setting used, joint attention emerges from natural and spontaneous interactions between a child and an adult. We present the data in the form of transcripts and photo stills. The examples were selected from extensive video footage for illustrative purposes, i.e. demonstrating how children with autism can respond to the changing behaviour of their co-participant, i.e. the experimenter. Furthermore, our data shows that the robot provides a salient object, or mediator for joint attention. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of this work in the context of further studies with robots and children with autism within the Aurora project, as well as the potential contribution of robots to research into the nature of autism.
}}

Relieu-etal2020

2021-02-24T07:07:18Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Marc Relieu; Merve Sahin; Aurélien Francillon
|Title=Une approche configurationnelle des leurres conversationnels
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation agents; AI; Artificial intelligence; Sociotechnical configurations; Telemarketing; Chatbot; AI reference list
|Key=Relieu-etal2020
|Year=2020
|Language=French
|Journal=Réseaux
|Volume=220-221
|Number=2
|Pages=81-111
|URL=https://www.cairn-int.info/revue-reseaux-2020-2-page-81.htm?contenu=article#
|Note=A configurational approach to conversational lures
|Abstract=Les leurres conversationnels sont des agents artificiels qui, une fois insérés au sein d’échanges langagiers, sont susceptibles de passer pour des humains. Ils se distinguent donc des robots et autres agents incarnés par leur capacité à leurrer des interactants humains en situation. Apparus à la naissance du projet de l’Intelligence Artificielle dans le Jeu de l’Imitation d’Alan Turing (appelé aussi test de Turing), les leurres conversationnels ont été ensuite développés dans des directions différentes, dont nous proposons une première généalogie. Les modalités de la conception des leurres (des professionnels de l’informatique y croisent des amateurs éclairés) diffèrent, de même que leurs usages : répondre à des interrogations épistémiques, gérer une consultation de psychologie non directive, répondre à des appels non sollicités de télémarketing. Dans cet article, nous montrons l’intérêt d’adopter une approche configurationnelle pour étudier les trois principaux types de leurres conversationnels, les différents contextes langagiers au sein desquels ils interviennent et comment ils parviennent à se glisser dans la texture intelligible des interactions, en vue de réaliser différentes fins pratiques.

Conversational lures are artificial agents that, when inserted into speech exchanges, are likely to pass for humans. They are therefore distinguished from robots and other embodied agents by their ability to deceive human interactants in a situation. After appearing at the birth of the Artificial Intelligence project in the form of a quasi-experimental test, Alan Turing’s Game of Imitation (also called the Turing test), conversational lures were developed in various directions, like the famous ELIZA program or Lenny, a program intended to put a stop to malicious calls. The category of conversational lures is therefore quite diverse, in terms both of design methods (IT professionals meet enlightened amateurs) and of uses: answering epistemic questions, managing a psychology consultation, or responding to unsolicited telemarketing calls. In this article, we show the advantages of adopting a configurational approach to study three types of conversational lures and the different linguistic contexts in which they operate, and to understand how they slip into the intelligible texture of interactions, for various practical purposes.
}}

Reeves2019

2021-02-24T07:06:47Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Stuart Reeves; Martin Porcheron; Joel Fischer
|Title='This is Not What We Wanted': Designing for Conversation with Voice Interfaces
|Tag(s)=EMCA; AI reference list
|Key=Reeves2019
|Publisher=ACM
|Year=2018
|Address=New York, NY, USA
|Month=dec
|Journal=Interactions
|Volume=26
|Number=1
|Pages=46–51
|URL=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3296699
|DOI=10.1145/3296699
}}

Reeves2017

2021-02-24T07:06:23Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INPROCEEDINGS
|Author(s)=Stuart Reeves;
|Title=Some conversational challenges of talking with machines
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Technologized interaction; CSCW; HCI; AI reference list
|Key=Reeves2017
|Year=2017
|Language=English
|Booktitle=Talking with Conversational Agents in Collaborative Action, Workshop at the 20th ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
|URL=http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/40510/
|Abstract=A surge of interest in the capabilities of so-called 'conversational' technologies—both from research and industrial contexts—furnishes CSCW and HCI with opportunities to enrich and leverage its historic connection to conversation analysis (and relatedly, ethnomethodology) in novel ways. This paper explores a number of preliminary interactional troubles one might encounter when 'talking to' conversational agents, and in doing so sketches out possible routes forward in the empirical study of agents as collaborative technologies, as well as touching on further conceptual challenges that face research in this area.
}}

PorcheronFischerSharples2017

2021-02-24T07:05:35Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INPROCEEDINGS
|Author(s)=Martin Porcheron; Joel E Fischer; Sarah Sharples;
|Title=Do Animals Have Accents?: Talking with Agents in Multi-Party Conversation
|Tag(s)=EMCA; collocated interaction; conversation analysis; conversational agents; ethnomethodology; intelligent personal assistants; mobile devices; multi-party conversation; smartphones; AI reference list
|Key=PorcheronFischerSharples2017
|Publisher=ACM
|Year=2017
|Address=New York, NY, USA
|Booktitle=Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
|Pages=207–219
|URL=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2998181.2998298
|DOI=10.1145/2998181.2998298
|ISBN=978-1-4503-4335-0
|Series=CSCW '17
|Abstract=In this paper we unpack the use of conversational agents, or so-called intelligent personal assistants (IPAs), in multi-party conversation amongst a group of friends while they are socialising in a café. IPAs such as Siri or Google Now can be found on a large proportion of personal smartphones and tablets, and are promoted as 'natural language' interfaces. The question we pursue here is how they are actually drawn upon in conversational practice? In our work we examine the use of these IPAs in a mundane and common-place setting and employ an ethnomethodological perspective to draw out the character of the IPA-use in conversation. Additionally, we highlight a number of nuanced practicalities of their use in multi-party settings. By providing a depiction of the nature and methodical practice of their use, we are able to contribute our findings to the design of IPAs.
}}

Porcheron-etal2018

2021-02-24T07:04:53Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INPROCEEDINGS
|Author(s)=Martin Porcheron; Joel E. Fischer; Stuart Reeves; Sarah Sharples;
|Title=Voice interfaces in everyday life
|Tag(s)=Amazon Echo; EMCA; conversational; voice user interface; AI reference list
|Key=Porcheron-etal2018
|Publisher=ACM
|Year=2018
|Language=English
|Address=New York
|Booktitle=CHI'18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
|Pages=Paper 640
|URL=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3173574.3174214
|DOI=10.1145/3173574.3174214
|Abstract=Voice User Interfaces (VUIs) are becoming ubiquitously available, being embedded both into everyday mobility via smartphones, and into the life of the home via 'assistant' devices. Yet, exactly how users of such devices practically thread that use into their everyday social interactions remains underexplored. By collecting and studying audio data from month-long deployments of the Amazon Echo in participants' homes-informed by ethnomethodology and conversation analysis-our study documents the methodical practices of VUI users, and how that use is accomplished in the complex social life of the home. Data we present shows how the device is made accountable to and embedded into conversational settings like family dinners where various simultaneous activities are being achieved. We discuss how the VUI is finely coordinated with the sequential organisation of talk. Finally, we locate implications for the accountability of VUI interaction, request and response design, and raise conceptual challenges to the notion of designing 'conversational' interfaces.
}}

Porcheron2020

2021-02-24T07:04:22Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Martin Porcheron; Joel E. Fischer; Stuart Reeves
|Title=Pulling Back the Curtain on the Wizards of Oz
|Tag(s)=EMCA; woz; natural language interfaces; voice interfaces; vuis; robots; ethnography; ethnomethodology; cscw; AI reference list
|Key=Porcheron2020
|Publisher=Association for Computing Machinery
|Year=2020
|Address=New York, NY, USA
|Month=Dec
|Journal=Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.
|Volume=4
|Number=CSCW3
|DOI=10.1145/3432942
|Abstract=The Wizard of Oz method is an increasingly common practice in HCI and CSCW studies as part of iterative design processes for interactive systems. Instead of designing a fully-fledged system, the `technical work' of key system components is completed by human operators yet presented to study participants as if computed by a machine. Yet, little is known about how Wizard of Oz studies are interactionally and collaboratively achieved in situ by researchers and participants. By adopting ethnomethodological perspective, we analyse our use of the method in studies with a voice-controlled vacuum robot \changeand two researchers present. We present data that reveals the work of how such studies are organised and presented to participants and unpack the coordinated orchestration work that unfolds `behind the scenes' to complete the study. We examine how the researchers attend to participant requests and technical breakdowns, and discuss the performative, collaborative, and methodological nature of their work. We conclude by offering insights from our application of the approach to others in the HCI and CSCW communities for applying the method.
}}

Pitsch2015

2021-02-24T07:03:41Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
|Author(s)=Karola Pitsch
|Title=Ko-Konstruktion in der Mensch-Roboter-Interaktion
|Editor(s)=Ulrich Dausendschön-Gay; Elisabeth Gülich; Ulrich Krafft;
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Human-robot interaction (HRI)
|Key=Pitsch2015
|Publisher=transcript
|Year=2015
|Language=German
|Address=Bielefeld
|Booktitle=Ko-Konstruktionen in der Interaktion: Die gemeinsame Arbeit an Äußerungen und anderen sozialen Ereignissen
|Pages=229–258
|URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783839432952/9783839432952-013/9783839432952-013.xml
|DOI=10.14361/9783839432952-013
}}

Pitschetal2009

2021-02-24T07:02:54Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INPROCEEDINGS
|Author(s)=Karola Pitsch; Hideaki Kuzuoka; Yuya Suzuki; Luise Sussenbach; Paul Luff; Christian Heath;
|Title=“The first five seconds”: contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in HRI
|Tag(s)=EMCA; engagement; museum; openings; restarts; robots; AI reference list
|Key=Pitschetal2009
|Year=2009
|Booktitle=RO-MAN 2009: The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication
|Pages=985–991
|URL=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5326167
|DOI=10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326167
|ISBN=9781424450817
|Abstract=If robot systems are being deployed in real world settings with untrained users who happen to accidentally pass by or could leave at any moment in time, then this places specific demands on the robot system: it needs to secure and maintain the user's engagement. In this, a common and critical problem consists of entering into a 'focused encounter'. It requires each interactional partner to closely react upon the other's actions on a very fine-grained level engaging in a stepwise and dynamic process of mutual adjustments. We report initial findings from a study in which we have developed a preliminary, simple solution to this problem inspired by work from Conversation Analysis. Using this as an instrument to explore the impact of a 'contingent' (CE) vs. 'non-contingent entry' (NCE), we find that users who enter into the interaction in a dynamic and contingent manner show a significantly different way of interacting with the robot than the NCE group.
}}

Pitsch2020

2021-02-24T07:02:23Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Karola Pitsch
|Title=Répondre aux questions d’un robot : Dynamique de participation des groupes adultes-enfants dans les rencontres avec un robot guide de musée
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Question-answer sequences; Robot-child interaction; Participation; Museums; AI reference list
|Key=Pitsch2020
|Year=2020
|Language=French
|Journal=Réseaux
|Volume=220-221
|Number=2
|Pages=113-150
|URL=https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-reseaux-2020-2-page-113.htm?contenu=resume#
|Note=Answering a robot’s questions: Participation dynamics of adult-child-groups in encounters with a museum guide robot

Traduit de l’anglais par Marc Relieu, et révisé par Julia Velkovska
|Abstract=Cette étude des rencontres concrètes de petits groupes d’adultes et d’enfants avec un robot-guide-de-musée autonome prend l’interaction humain-robot comme outil d’étude de l’(inter-)action située. En analysant des séquences questions-réponses (sur enregistrements vidéo et archives du logiciel de reconnaissance vocale), nous explorons la manière dont ces groupes tentent de répondre aux questions du robot et la dynamique interactionnelle émergeant entre les visiteurs. Une micro-analyse fine de l’interaction (ethnométhodologie/analyse conversationnelle) y est combinée avec la perspective interne du robot, montrant que les adultes tendent à jouer les « facilitateurs de participation », faisant des enfants les principaux co-participants du robot. Les participants travaillant ensemble pour produire des réponses aux questions du robot, il est nécessaire de distinguer conceptuellement la « réponse comme processus d’interaction » de la « réponse comme résultat ». Dans le développement de séquences questions-réponses pour les systèmes robotiques, cette étude propose un apport sur une approche multimodale, la gestion d’utilisateurs multiples et la sensibilité à leur hétérogénéité.

Considering human-robot-interaction as a tool for investigating situated (inter-)action, this paper investigates encounters of small groups of adult and children with an autonomous museum guide robot in the real-world. Focusing on Question-Answer-Sequences, it explores how these groups attempt to answers the robot’s questions and the emerging interactional dynamics between the visitors. Analysis uses video-taped recordings and log-files of the system’s speech recognition. It combines fine-grained micro-analysis of interaction using Conversation Analysis (EM/CA) with the robot’s internal perspective. Analysis reveals that adults tend to assume the role of ‘participation facilitator’ and establish the child(ren) as primary co-participant(s) for the robot. The participants jointly work to produce an answer to the robot’s question, so that a conceptual distinction between the ‘answer-as-interactional process’ and the ‘answer-as-result’ is required. Implications for further designing Question-Answer-Sequences for robotic systems consist in a multimodal approach, in dealing with multiple users and sensitivity to the users’ heterogeneity.
}}

Pitsch2016

2021-02-24T07:01:47Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Karola Pitsch
|Title=Limits and opportunities for mathematizing communicational conduct for social robotics in the real world? Toward enabling a robot to make use of the human’s competences
|Tag(s)=Robots; Human-computer interaction; Human-robot interaction; HCI; Workplace studies; EMCA; Rules; Museums; AI reference list
|Key=Pitsch2016
|Year=2016
|Language=English
|Journal=AI & Society
|Volume=31
|Number=4
|Pages=587–593
|URL=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-015-0629-0
|DOI=10.1007/s00146-015-0629-0
|Abstract=Given the widespread goal of endowing robotic systems with interactional capabilities that would allow users to deal with them intuitively by using means of natural communication, the text addresses the question to which extent it would be possible to mathematize (aspects of) social interaction. Using the example of a robotic museum guide in a real-world scenario, central challenges in dealing with the situatedness and contingency of human communicational conduct are shown using fine-grained video analysis combining the robot’s internal perspective with the user’s view. On a conceptual level, the text argues to consider human and robot as one ‘interactional system’ that jointly solves a practical (communicational) task. This opens up the perspective to integrate the human’s interactional competences and adaptability in the design and modeling of interactional building blocks for HRI. If we provide the technical system with systematic resources to make use of the human’s competences, the limits of mathematization might gain an interesting twist. Through careful design of the robot’s conduct, a powerful resource exists for the robot to pro-actively influence the users’ expectations about relevant subsequent actions, so that the robot could contribute to establishing the conditions which would be most beneficial to its own functioning.
}}

Pitsch2015

2021-02-24T07:01:14Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
|Author(s)=Karola Pitsch
|Title=Ko-Konstruktion in der Mensch-Roboter-Interaktion
|Editor(s)=Ulrich Dausendschön-Gay; Elisabeth Gülich; Ulrich Krafft;
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Human-robot interaction (HRI); AI reference list
|Key=Pitsch2015
|Publisher=transcript
|Year=2015
|Language=German
|Address=Bielefeld
|Booktitle=Ko-Konstruktionen in der Interaktion: Die gemeinsame Arbeit an Äußerungen und anderen sozialen Ereignissen
|Pages=229–258
|URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783839432952/9783839432952-013/9783839432952-013.xml
|DOI=10.14361/9783839432952-013
}}

PelikanBroth2016

2021-02-24T06:59:08Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INPROCEEDINGS
|Author(s)=Hannah R. M. Pelikan; Mathias Broth;
|Title=Why that Nao?: how humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot in taking turns-at-talk
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; human-robot interaction; recipient design; sequence organization; turn-taking; AI reference list
|Key=PelikanBroth2016
|Publisher=ACM
|Year=2016
|Language=English
|Address=New York, NY, USA
|Booktitle=CHI'16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
|Pages=4921–4932
|URL=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2858036.2858478
|DOI=10.1145/2858036.2858478
|ISBN=978-1-4503-3362-7
|Abstract=This paper explores how humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot. Video data of participants playing a charade game with a Nao robot were analyzed from a multimodal conversation analysis perspective. Participants soon adjust aspects of turn-design such as word selection, turn length and prosody, thereby adapting to the robot's limited perceptive abilities as they become apparent in the interaction. However, coordination of turns-at-talk remains troublesome throughout the encounter, as evidenced by overlapping turns and lengthy silences around possible turn endings. The study discusses how the robot design can be improved to support the problematic taking of turns-at-talk with humans. Two programming strategies to address the identified problems are presented: 1. to program the robot so that it will be systematically receptive at the equivalence to transition relevance places in human-human interaction, and 2. to make the robot preferably produce verbal actions that require a response in a conditional way, rather than making a response only possible.
}}

Pelikan2020a

2021-02-24T06:58:26Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=INPROCEEDINGS
|Author(s)=Hannah R. M. Pelikan; Mathias Broth; Leelo Keevallik;
|Title=Are You Sad, Cozmo?: How Humans Make Sense of a Home Robot's Emotion Displays
|Tag(s)=affect; conversation analysis; emotion; long-term interaction; non-lexical sounds; robots in the home; social robots; AI reference list
|Key=Pelikan2020a
|Publisher=Association for Computing Machinery
|Year=2020
|Language=English
|Address=Cambridge, UK
|Booktitle=HRI'20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
|Pages=461–470
|URL=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3319502.3374814
|DOI=10.1145/3319502.3374814
|ISBN=978-1-4503-6746-2
|Abstract=This paper explores how humans interpret displays of emotion produced by a social robot in real world situated interaction. Taking a multimodal conversation analytic approach, we analyze video data of families interacting with a Cozmo robot in their homes. Focusing on one happy and one sad robot animation, we study, on a turn-by-turn basis, how participants respond to audible and visible robot behavior designed to display emotion. We show how emotion animations are consequential for interactional progressivity: While displays of happiness typically move the interaction forward, displays of sadness regularly lead to a reconsideration of previous actions by humans. Furthermore, in making sense of the robot animations people may move beyond the designer's reported intentions, actually broadening the opportunities for their subsequent engagement. We discuss how sadness functions as an interactional rewind button and how the inherent vagueness of emotion displays can be deployed in design.
}}

Oktarini2020

2021-02-24T06:57:53Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Kadek Ratih Dwi Oktarini
|Title=Are You Flirting, Objectifying or What? a Conversation Analysis of “you’re very sexy” Conversational Turn
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Indonesian; Intent; Conversational agents; Conversation design; AI reference list
|Key=Oktarini2020
|Year=2020
|Language=English
|Journal=Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora
|Volume=10
|Number=3
|Pages=294-308
|URL=ojs.pnb.ac.id/index.php/SOSHUM/
|Abstract=Intent identification is one of the most critical components in
conversational agent design. Conversational agent “is any dialogue system
that not only conducts natural language processing but also responds
automatically using human language.” (Conversational Agent, 2019). The
crux of designing human-like conversational agent is to mimic how human
understands another human and then responds “naturally”. The current
study attempts to answer the fundamental question: how to model human
processes of understanding another human? In order to answer that
question, it starts from exploring some basic concepts relevant to intent
identification from Conversation Analysis (CA). CA is a mature field that
studies authentic human interaction. The basic concepts from CA are then
synthesised into a model that potentially fit to existing framework and
paradigm in conversational agent design, i.e. Natural Conversation
Framework (NCF) and Intent-Entity-Context-Response (IECR) paradigm.
Instead of using a made-up sentence, the model is then tested to an
authentic conversational turn seksi sekali dirimu ‘you’re very sexy’. The
test shows that the model is able to detect several possible intents contain in
this authentic conversational turn. The model is also able to handle
Conversational Indonesian and multi-modality. Considering the versatility
of Conversation Analysis, in all likelihood the model will be able to handle
any language and all kinds of modalities. Future study can be done to
analyse more Conversational Indonesian data (to develop library of intent
for Conversational Indonesian Language), as well as conversational data
from different languages and conversational data containing diverse
modalities.
}}

Meyer2016

2021-02-24T06:55:38Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Christian Meyer;
|Title=Interaktionskrisen oder anthropologische Normalität? Über liminale Interaktionen im 21. Jahrhundert
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Liminal interactions; Dementia; Artificial intelligence; Strangeness; AI reference list
|Key=Meyer2016
|Year=2016
|Language=German
|Journal=Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie
|Volume=41
|Number=1 (Supplement)
|Pages=75-95
|URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11614-016-0207-9
|DOI=10.1007/s11614-016-0207-9
|Note=Interaction crises or anthropological normality? On liminal interactions in the 21st century

In this text, I inspect situations in which categorially undefined interlocutors encounter one another (cultural strangers, persons with dementia, artificial intelligences) from an ethnomethodological perspective. As I will show, even though expectations derived from an assumed common ground are permanently dashed in the course of these „liminal interactions“, this does not lead to interactional crises. Instead, they are responded by relative serenity and resolved in the course of the interaction itself. From a theoretical perspective, the analysis therefore adds another layer to the ethnomethodological concept of accountability. The accountability of practices not only renders the typical meaning of a practice public, but furthermore continuously examines in the course of the doing the normality or alterity of the interlocutor as to the compatibility and incompatibility of their common ground.
|Abstract=Der Text inspiziert Situationen der Interaktion mit sozialweltlich unklaren Gegenübern (Fremde, Menschen mit Demenz, künstliche Intelligenzen) aus ethnomethodologischer Perspektive. Wie sich zeigt, erzeugen permanent gebrochene Normalitätserwartungen in diesen „liminalen Interaktionen“ keineswegs Interaktionskrisen; vielmehr werden sie mit relativer Gelassenheit beantwortet und im Verlauf der Interaktion selbst mitlaufend geklärt. Theoretisch fügt die Untersuchung daher dem ethnomethodologischen Konzept der accountability eine weitere Schicht hinzu. Die accountability von Praktiken macht nicht nur deren typischen Sinn öffentlich, sondern überprüft darüber hinaus fortlaufend und implizit mit dem Tun die Normalität bzw. Alterität des Gegenübers auf die mögliche Komptabilität oder Inkompatibilität von Normalitätserwartungen.
}}

Mair2021

2021-02-24T06:54:35Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Michael Mair; Phillip Brooker; William Dutton; Philippe Sormani
|Title=Just what are we doing when we’re describing AI? Harvey Sacks, the commentator machine, and the descriptive politics of the new artificial intelligence
|Tag(s)=EMCA; In press; Description; Method; Politics of method; Heather Love; Harvey Sacks; AI; Artificial Intelligence; STS; AlphaGo; Commentator machine; AI reference list
|Key=Mair2020
|Year=2020
|Language=English
|Journal=Qualitative Research
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1468794120975988
|DOI=10.1177/1468794120975988
|Abstract=In dialogue with the work of Heather Love and colleagues, this article makes use of a peculiar
‘descriptive assemblage’ proposed by Harvey Sacks (1963) – that of the ‘commentator machine’
– to open up issues of ‘descriptive politics’ in the field of contemporary Artificial Intelligence (AI).
We do so by reviewing the gameplay of Google DeepMind’s AlphaGo – an algorithm designed
to outperform human players at the game of Go – with a focus on the incongruities of the much
discussed, indeed (in)famous ‘move 37’ in a human-versus-machine challenge match in 2016 (e.g.
Silver et al., 2017). Looking at move 37 in conjunction with the various layers of commentary that
came to be woven around it, we explore the kinds of descriptive work involved in characterising
the move, the troubles that work reveals and what we can learn about the practices and politics
of description from encounters with ‘New AI’ applications like AlphaGo.
}}

Lohse-etal2009

2021-02-24T06:53:46Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Manja Lohse; Marc Hanheide; Karola Pitsch; Katharina J. Rohlfing; Gerhard Sagerer;
|Title=Improving HRI design by applying Systemic Interaction Analysis (SinA)
|Tag(s)=EMCA; analysis tools; user studies; autonomous robots; AI reference list
|Key=Lohse-etal2009
|Year=2009
|Journal=Interaction Studies
|Volume=10
|Number=3
|Pages=298–323
|URL=https://benjamins.com/catalog/is.10.3.03loh
|DOI=10.1075/is.10.3.03loh
|Abstract=Social robots are designed to interact with humans. That is why they need interaction models that take social behaviors into account. These usually influence many of a robot’s abilities simultaneously. Hence, when designing robots that users will want to interact with, all components need to be tested in the system context, with real users and real tasks in real interactions. This requires methods that link the analysis of the robot’s internal computations within and between components (system level) with the interplay between robot and user (interaction level). This article presents Systemic Interaction Analysis (SInA) as an integrated method to (a) derive prototypical courses of interaction based on system and interaction level, (b) identify deviations from these, (c) infer the causes of deviations by analyzing the system’s operational sequences, and (d) improve the robot iteratively by adjusting models and implementations.
}}

Licoppe2020b

2021-02-24T06:53:08Z

Andreas Liesenfeld:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Christian Licoppe; Nicolas Rollet;
|Title=« Je dois y aller ». Analyses de séquences de clôtures entre humains et robot
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Social robotics; Conversation Analysis; Disengagement; Sociality; HRI; Human-robot interaction; Human-robot interaction (HRI); AI reference list
|Key=Licoppe2020b
|Year=2020
|Language=French
|Journal=Réseaux
|Volume=220-221
|Number=2
|Pages=151-193
|URL=https://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_ARTICLE=RES_220_0151
|Note=“I’ve got to go”: Analyses of closing sequences in human-robot conversations
|Abstract=A partir d’un corpus d’interactions humain-robot filmées, nous proposons, en suivant une approche d’analyse conversationnelle, une étude multimodale des phases de désengagements terminaux. L’accomplissement de clôtures suppose que le robot soit capable de compléter des séquences interactionnelles, et nous décrivons comment les participants humains se montrent particulièrement sensibles aux situations dans lesquelles les robots peuvent paraître manifester une compréhension de leurs actions précédentes. Nous analysons ensuite les phases de désengagement et montrons qu’elles prennent des formes diverses, depuis les clôtures « machiniques » (exit, instruction) jusqu’aux pré-clôtures qui caractérisent les interactions humaines ordinaires. Dans ce dernier cas, nous montrons qu’il convient aussi de distinguer les formes où les participants humains se pressent pour finir, ou bien laissent au robot une opportunité de répondre. Cela nous permet de relever deux dimensions différentes dans ces formes de clôture des interactions humain-robot, le tact interactionnel (traiter plus ou moins le robot comme un partenaire) et le caractère relativement collaboratif du désengagement.

Based on a corpus of videotaped human-robot interactions, we offer a multimodal study of phases of final disengagement following a conversation analysis approach. Doing closing sequences implies that the robot is capable of completing interactional sequences, and we describe how human participants appear to be particularly sensitive to situations in which robots may appear to show understanding of their prior actions. We then analyse the phases of disengagement and show that their form may vary, ranging from “mechanical” closing statements (exit, instruction) to the pre-closing sequences characteristic of ordinary human interactions. With regard to the latter, we show that it is also relevant to distinguish between forms in which human participants are in a hurry to finish and those in which humans give the robot an opportunity to respond. This allows us to reveal two different dimensions of these closing statement formulas in human-robot interactions: that of interactional tact (the extent to which the robot is treated like a partner) and the relatively collaborative nature of sequence-based disengagement.
}}