Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Towards human-like behaviour in spoken dialog systems
KTH, School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Speech, Music and Hearing, TMH, Speech Communication and Technology.
KTH, School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Speech, Music and Hearing, TMH, Speech Communication and Technology.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9327-9482
KTH, School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Speech, Music and Hearing, TMH, Speech Communication and Technology.
KTH, School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Speech, Music and Hearing, TMH, Speech Communication and Technology.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3585-8077
Show others and affiliations
2006 (English)In: Proceedings of Swedish Language Technology Conference (SLTC 2006), Gothenburg, Sweden, 2006Conference paper, Published paper (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

We and others have found it fruitful to assume that users, when interacting with spoken dialogue systems, perceive the systems and their actions metaphorically. Common metaphors include the human metaphor and the interface metaphor (cf. Edlund, Heldner, & Gustafson, 2006). In the interface metaphor, the spoken dialogue system is perceived as a machine interface – often but not always a computer interface. Speech is used to accomplish what would have otherwise been accomplished by some other means of input, such as a keyboard or a mouse. In the human metaphor, on the other hand, the computer is perceived as a creature (or even a person) with humanlike conversational abilities, and speech is not a substitute or one of many alternatives, but rather the primary means of communicating with this creature. We are aware that more “natural ” or human-like behaviour does not automatically make a spoken dialogue system “better ” (i.e. more efficient or more well-liked by its users). Indeed, we are quite convinced that the advantage (or disadvantage) of humanlike behaviour will be highly dependent on the application. However, a dialogue system that is coherent with a human metaphor may profit from a number of characteristics.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Gothenburg, Sweden, 2006.
National Category
Computer Science Language Technology (Computational Linguistics)
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-51935OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-51935DiVA: diva2:465229
Conference
Swedish Language Technology Conference (SLTC 2006), 27-28 oktober 2006, Göteborg
Note
tmh_import_11_12_14. QC 20111230Available from: 2011-12-14 Created: 2011-12-14 Last updated: 2011-12-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

http://202.114.89.42/resource/pdf/2474.pdf

Authority records BETA

Edlund, JensHjalmarsson, AnnaHouse, DavidSkantze, Gabriel

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Carlson, RolfEdlund, JensHeldner, MattiasHjalmarsson, AnnaHouse, DavidSkantze, Gabriel
By organisation
Speech Communication and Technology
Computer ScienceLanguage Technology (Computational Linguistics)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 65 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf