Abstract
Language both influences and indicates group behavior, and we need tools that let us study the content of what is communicated. While one could annotate these spoken dialogue acts by hand, this is a tedious, not scalable process. We present Meeter, a tool for automatically detecting information sharing, shared understanding, word counts, and group activation in spoken interactions. The contribution of our work is two-fold: (1) We validated the tool by showing that the measures computed by Meeter align with human-generated labels, and (2) we demonstrated the value of Meeter as a research tool by quantifying aspects of group behavior using those measures and deriving novel findings from that. Our tool is valuable for researchers conducting group science, as well as those designing groupware systems.
- Michael Baker, Tia Hansen, Richard Joiner, and David Traum. 1999. The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches 31 (1999), 63.Google Scholar
- Tony Bergstrom and Karrie Karahalios. 2007. Conversation Clock: Visualizing audio patterns in co-located groups. In System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, 78--78.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jean Carletta, Simone Ashby, Sebastien Bourban, Mike Flynn, Mael Guillemot, Thomas Hain, Jaroslav Kadlec, Vasilis Karaiskos, Wessel Kraaij, Melissa Kronenthal, et al. 2005. The AMI meeting corpus: A pre-announcement. In International Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction. Springer, 28--39.Google Scholar
- Senthil Chandrasegaran, Chris Bryan, Hidekazu Shidara, Tung-Yen Chuang, and Kwan-Liu Ma. 2019. TalkTraces: Real-Time Capture and Visualization of Verbal Content in Meetings. In Proceedings of ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2019).Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ronan Collobert, Jason Weston, Léon Bottou, Michael Karlen, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Pavel Kuksa. 2011. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. Journal of machine learning research 12, Aug (2011), 2493--2537.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gregorio Convertino, Helena M Mentis, Mary Beth Rosson, John M Carroll, Aleksandra Slavkovic, and Craig H Ganoe. 2008. Articulating common ground in cooperative work: content and process. In proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1637--1646.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Carsten KW De Dreu, Bernard A Nijstad, and Daan van Knippenberg. 2008. Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12, 1 (2008), 22--49.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Barbara Di Eugenio, Pamela W Jordan, Richmond H Thomason, and Johanna D Moore. 2000. The agreement process: An empirical investigation of human--human computer-mediated collaborative dialogs. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53, 6 (2000), 1017--1076.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joan Morris DiMicco, Katherine J Hollenbach, Anna Pandolfo, and Walter Bender. 2007. The impact of increased awareness while face-to-face. Human-Computer Interaction 22, 1 (2007), 47--96.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gijsbert Erkens and Jeroen Janssen. 2008. Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International journal of computer-supported collaborative learning 3, 4 (2008), 447--470.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Florian Eyben, Klaus R Scherer, Björn W Schuller, Johan Sundberg, Elisabeth André, Carlos Busso, Laurence Y Devillers, Julien Epps, Petri Laukka, and Shrikanth S Narayanan. 2016. The Geneva minimalistic acoustic parameter set (GeMAPS) for voice research and affective computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 7, 2 (2016), 190--202.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Florian Eyben, Martin Wöllmer, and Björn Schuller. 2010. Opensmile: the munich versatile and fast open-source audio feature extractor. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on Multimedia. ACM, 1459--1462.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Connie JG Gersick. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management journal 31, 1 (1988), 9--41.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Arthur C Graesser, Mark W Conley, and Andrew Olney. 2012. Intelligent tutoring systems. (2012).Google Scholar
- Saul Greenberg and Michael Rounding. 2001. The notification collage: posting information to public and personal displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 514--521.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gahgene Gweon, Soojin Jun, Joonhwan Lee, Susan Finger, and Carolyn Penstein Rosé. 2011. A framework for assessment of student project groups on-line and off-line. In Analyzing interactions in CSCL. Springer, 293--317.Google Scholar
- Verlin B Hinsz, R Scott Tindale, and David A Vollrath. 1997. The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological bulletin 121, 1 (1997), 43.Google Scholar
- Jesse Hoey, Tobias Schröder, Jonathan Morgan, Kimberly B Rogers, Deepak Rishi, and Meiyappan Nagappan. 2018. Artificial Intelligence and Social Simulation: Studying Group Dynamics on a Massive Scale. Small Group Research 49, 6 (2018), 647--683.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- David H Jonassen and Hyug Kwon. 2001. Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational technology research and development 49, 1 (2001), 35.Google Scholar
- Norbert L Kerr and Scott Tindale. 2014. Methods of small group research. (2014).Google Scholar
- Joseph Kim and Julie A Shah. 2016. Improving Team's Consistency of Understanding in Meetings. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 46, 5 (2016), 625--637.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Taemie Kim, Agnes Chang, Lindsey Holland, and Alex Sandy Pentland. 2008. Meeting mediator: enhancing group collaboration using sociometric feedback. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 457--466. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: June 2018.Google Scholar
- Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882 (2014).Google Scholar
- Young Ji Kim, David Engel, Anita Williams Woolley, Jeffrey Yu-Ting Lin, Naomi McArthur, and Thomas W Malone. 2017. What Makes a Strong Team?: Using Collective Intelligence to Predict Team Performance in League of Legends.. In CSCW. 2316--2329.Google Scholar
- David Lazer, Alex Pentland, Lada Adamic, Sinan Aral, Albert-László Barabási, Devon Brewer, Nicholas Christakis, Noshir Contractor, James Fowler, Myron Gutmann, et al. 2009. Computational social science. Science 323, 5915 (2009), 721--723.Google Scholar
- Linda Lebie, Jonathan A Rhoades, and Joseph E McGrath. 1995. Interaction process in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 4, 2--3 (1995), 127--152.Google Scholar
- Ji Young Lee and Franck Dernoncourt. 2016. Sequential short-text classification with recurrent and convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03827 (2016).Google Scholar
- Gilly Leshed, Jeffrey T Hancock, Dan Cosley, Poppy L McLeod, and Geri Gay. 2007. Feedback for guiding reflection on teamwork practices. In Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work. ACM, 217--220.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gilly Leshed, Diego Perez, Jeffrey T Hancock, Dan Cosley, Jeremy Birnholtz, Soyoung Lee, Poppy L McLeod, and Geri Gay. 2009. Visualizing real-time language-based feedback on teamwork behavior in computer-mediated groups. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 537--546.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joseph F McCarthy, Ben Congleton, and F Maxwell Harper. 2008. The context, content & community collage: sharing personal digital media in the physical workplace. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 97--106.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joseph E McGrath. 1997. Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 1, 1 (1997), 7.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Kate G Niederhoffer and James W Pennebaker. 2002. Linguistic style matching in social interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 21, 4 (2002), 337--360.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Eyal Ofek, Shamsi T Iqbal, and Karin Strauss. 2013. Reducing disruption from subtle information delivery during a conversation: mode and bandwidth investigation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3111--3120.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Michael J Owren and Jo-Anne Bachorowski. 2003. Reconsidering the evolution of non-linguistic communication: The case of laughter. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 27, 3 (2003), 183--200.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Wei Pan, Wen Dong, Manuel Cebrian, Taemie Kim, James H Fowler, and Alex Sandy Pentland. 2012. Modeling dynamical influence in human interaction: Using data to make better inferences about influence within social systems. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 29, 2 (2012), 77--86.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- James W Pennebaker, Martha E Francis, and Roger J Booth. 2001. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 71, 2001 (2001), 2001.Google Scholar
- Alex Pentland. 2004. Social dynamics: Signals and behavior. In Proceedings of the third international conference on developmental learning (ICDL'04). Salk Institute, San Diego. UCSD Institute for Neural Computation. 263--267.Google Scholar
- Yan Qu and Derek L Hansen. 2008. Building shared understanding in collaborative sense making. In Proceedings of CHI 2008 Sensemaking Workshop.Google Scholar
- Marc Schröder. 2003. Experimental study of affect bursts. Speech communication 40, 1--2 (2003), 99--116.Google Scholar
- J Bryan Sexton and Robert L Helmreich. 2000. Analyzing cockpit communications: the links between language, performance, error, and workload. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments 5, 1 (2000), 6.Google Scholar
- Yang Shi, Yang Wang, Ye Qi, John Chen, Xiaoyao Xu, and Kwan-Liu Ma. 2017. IdeaWall: Improving creative collaboration through combinatorial visual stimuli. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 594--603.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Yla R Tausczik and James W Pennebaker. 2013. Improving teamwork using real-time language feedback. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 459--468.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ottokar Tilk and Tanel Alumäe. 2016. Bidirectional Recurrent Neural Network with Attention Mechanism for Punctuation Restoration. In Interspeech 2016.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. science 330, 6004 (2010), 686--688.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Automatically Analyzing Brainstorming Language Behavior with Meeter
Recommendations
Natural Language, Mixed-initiative Personal Assistant Agents
IMCOM '18: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and CommunicationThe increasing popularity and use of personal voice assistant technologies, such as Siri and Google Now, is driving and expanding progress toward the long-term and lofty goal of using artificial intelligence to build human-computer dialog systems ...
Design of an Intelligent Agent for Stimulating Brainstorming
ICMLC 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 10th International Conference on Machine Learning and ComputingIn recent years, brainstorming has gradually become a mainstream approach used by groups of people to collect ideas before making decisions. This approach is useful in handling the predicament of lacking ideas on specific topics for individual members, ...
Towards Naturally Responsive Spoken Dialog Systems by Modelling Pragmatic-Prosody Correlations of Discourse Markers
IUI '20: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces CompanionHuman speakers in a dialog adapt their responses and the way they convey them to their interlocutors by appropriately tuning their prosody, taking into account the context in which the dialog takes place. Today's spoken dialog systems are incapable of ...






Comments