TheEffectsofInterruptingBehavioron
InterpersonalAttitudeandEngagementinDyadicInteractions
AngeloCafaro
NadineGlas
CatherinePelachaud
LTCI,CNRS,Télécom ParisTech,Université Paris-Saclay
Focus
Newlookatinterruptionsinagent-agentandhuman-agentinteraction:
1 Strategy:cooperativevs.disruptive
2
Type:amountofspeaker’soverlap
Context(adjacencypairs):
a)Question:clarificationvs.misunderstanding
b)Opinion:agreementvs.disagreement
c)Partner communication:completionvs.tang.
d)Topic:elaboratevs.change
Study
4Trials:Question,Opinion,Partner,Topic
LeftAgent
(interruptee)
RightAgent
(interrupter)
2x3repeatedmeasuresdesign:
§ Type:nooverlapvs.shortvs.long
§ Strategy:cooperativevs.disruptive
Controlledaspects:
§ Gender:malevs.male
§ TTS:noprosodychange
§ Timing ofinterruption
§ Stereosoundandsubtitles
Type: YouknowI’vereadthestoryAliceinWonderland.
nooverlap Ittellsanamazingstory(0.2)
shortoverlap Ittellsanamazingstory[about]
Measurements:
longoverlap
§ Attitude:dominanceandfriendliness
§ Engagement andInvolvement
Ittellsanamazingstory[aboutalittlegirl.]
Strategy:
cooperative DoyoumeanthebookwrittenbyLewisCarrol?
disruptive WhenwereyouintheWonderlandthemepark?
Results
Left Agent(interruptee)
Trial
Type
(↗overlap)
↗Dominance
QUESTION
↘Friendliness
OPINION
n.s.
Strategy
(disr.-> coop.)
TypeANDStrategy
n.s.
↗Involvement
n.s.
(whentype:nooverlap)
↗Friendliness
(whentype:nooverlap)
RightAgent(interrupter)
Type
(↗overlap)
Strategy
(disr.->coop.)
↗Dominance ↗Involvement
n.s.
↗Friendliness
↗Engagement
↗Involvement
PARTNER
n.s.
↗Dominance
n.s.
↗Engagement
↗Dominance
↗Involvement
TOPIC
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
↘Friendliness
n.s.
TypeOR
Strategy(disr.->coop.)
↗Friendliness
↗Engagement
n.s.
↗Friendliness
n.s.
Type(moreoverlap):
§ Interruptee more
dominant/lessfriendly
§ Interrupter too!
Strategy(cooperative):
§ Interrupter more
involvedandengaged
Futurework:
§ Detect userinterruptions
§ Agentmodelmanaging
interruptions