Applying computational models of spatial prepositions to visually situated dialog

Computational Linguistics

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 271-306

  Kelleher, John D ^a   Costello, Fintan J ^b  

^a DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Ireland)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COMPUTATION THEORY; SEMANTICS;

COMPUTATIONAL MODEL; CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS; DIALOG SYSTEMS; GENERIC ARCHITECTURE; SPATIAL COGNITION; SPATIAL PREPOSITIONS; VISUAL CONTEXT; VISUAL SCENE;

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS;

EID: 67149137896     PISSN: 08912017     EISSN: 15309312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/coli.06-78-prep14     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Baldridge, J. and G. J. M. Kruijff. 2002. Coupling CCG andhybridlogic dependency semantics. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02), pages 319-326, Philadelphia, PA.
2. Baldridge, J. and G. J. M. Kruijff. 2003. Multi-modal combinatory categorial grammar. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-03), volume 1, pages 211-218, Budapest.
3. Beermann, D. and L. Hellan. 2004. Semantic decomposition in a computational HPSG grammar: A treatment of aspect and context-dependent directionals. In Proceedings of the HPSG04 Conference, pages 357-377, Leuven.
4. Bunt, H. 1994. Context and dialogue control. Think, 3:19-31.
5. Cahill, A., M. Burke, R. O'Donovan, J. van Genabith, and A. Way. 2004. Long-distance dependency resolution in automatically acquired wide-coverage PCFG-based LFG approximations. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 320-327, Barcelona.
6. Carletta, J., A. Isard, S. Isard, J. C. Kowtko, G. Doherty-Sneddon, and A. H. Anderson. 1997. The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics, 23(1):13-32.
7. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A. and G. D. Logan. 1997. The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 37:411-437.
8. Cohn, A. G., B. Bennett, J. M. Gooday, and N. Gotts. 1997. RCC: A calculus for region based qualitative spatial reasoning. GeoInformatica, 1:275-316.
9. Coventry, K. R. 1998. Spatial prepositions, functional relations, and lexical specification. In P. Olivier and K. P. Gapp, editors, Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pages 247-262.
10. Coventry, K. R. and S. Garrod. 2004. Saying, Seeing and Acting. The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Essays in Cognitive Psychology Series. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
11. Dale, R. and N. Haddock. 1991. Generating referring expressions involving relations. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-91), pages 161-166, Berlin.
12. Dale, R. and E. Reiter. 1995. Computatinal interpretations of the gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 18:233-263.
13. Fuhr, T., G. Socher, C. Scheering, and G. Sagerer. 1998. A three-dimensional spatial model for the interpretation of image data. In P. Olivier and K. P. Gapp, editors, Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pages 103-118.
14. Gapp, K. P. 1994. Basic meanings of spatial relations: Computation and evaluation in 3D space. In Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), Seattle, WA, pages 1393-1398.
15. Gapp, K. P. 1995. An empirically validated model for computing spatial relations. In Proceedings of the 19th German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI-95), Bielefeld, Germany, pages 245-256.
16. Gardent, C. 2002. Generating minimal definite descriptions. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL-02), pages 96-103, Philadelphia, PA.
17. Garrod, S., G. Ferrier, and S. Campbell. 1999. In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition, 72:167-189.
18. Gawron, J. M. 1986. Situations and prepositions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(3):327-382.
19. Gorniak, P. and D. Roy. 2004. Grounded semantic composition for visual scenes. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 21:429-470.
20. Hajicová, E. 1993. Issues of Sentence Structure and Discourse Patterns, volume 2 of Theoretical and Computational Linguistics. Charles University Press, Prague.
21. Hayward, W. G. and M. J. Tarr. 1995. Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition, 55:39-84.
22. Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of Prepositions in English. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
23. Horacek, H. 1997. An algorithm for generating referential descriptions with flexible interfaces. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 206-213, Madrid.
24. Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Current Studies in Linguistics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
25. Kelleher, J., F. Costello, and J. van Genabith. 2005. Dynamically structuring, updating and interrelating representations of visual and lingusitic discourse context. Artificial Intelligence, 167(1-2):62-102.
26. Kelleher, J. and J. van Genabith. 2004. Visual salience and reference resolution in simulated 3D environments. AI Review, 21(3-4):253-267.
27. Kelleher, J. and J. van Genabith. 2006. A computational model of the referential semantics of projective prepositions. In P. Saint-Dizier, editor, Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions, Speech and Language Processing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pages 199-216.
28. Kelleher, J. D. and G. J. Kruijff. 2006. Incremental generation of spatial referring expressions in situated dialog. In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Conference of the International Committee on Computational Linguistics and the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING/ACL-06), pages 1041-1048, Sydney.
29. Kelleher, J. D., G. J. Kruijff, and F. Costello. 2006. Proximity in context: an empirically grounded computation model of proximity for processing topological spatial expressions. In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Conference of the International Committee on Computational Linguistics and the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING/ACL-06), pages 745-752, Sydney.
30. Klein, M. 1999. An overview of the state of the art of coding schemes for dialogue act annotation. In V. Matousek, P. Mautner, J. Oceliková, and P. Sojka, editors, Text, Speech and Dialogue (TSD'99), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pages 274-297.
31. Krahmer, E. and M. Theune. 2002. Efficient context-sensitive generation of referring expressions. In K. van Deemter and R. Kibble, editors, Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. CLSI Publications, Stanford, CA, pages 223-263.
32. Kruijff, Geert-Jan, John Kelleher, and Nick Hawes. 2006. Information fusion for visual reference resolution in dynamic situated dialogue. In Elisabeth Andre, Laila Dybkjaer, Wolfgang Minker, Heiko Neumann, and Michael Weber, editors, In Proceedings of Perception and Interactive Technologies (PIT06), volume 4021 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, pages 117-128.
33. Kuipers, Benjamin. 2000. The spatial semantic hierarchy. Artificial Intelligence, 19:191-233.
34. Landau, B. 1996. Multiple geometric representations of objects in language and language learners. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett, editors, Language and Space. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pages 317-363.
35. Levelt, W. J. M. 1996. Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. In M. Bloom, P. Peterson, L. Nadell, and M. Garrett, editors, Language and Space. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pages 77-108.
36. Levinson, S. 1996. Frame of reference and Molyneux's question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In M. Bloom, P. Peterson, L. Nadell, and M. Garrett, editors, Language and Space. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pages 109-170.
37. Levinson, S. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
38. Logan, G. D. 1994. Spatial attention andthe apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20:1015-1036.
39. Logan, G. D. 1995. Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12:523-533.
40. Logan, G. D. and D. D. Sadler. 1996. A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In M. Bloom, P. Peterson, L. Nadell, and M. Garrett, editors, Language and Space. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pages 493-529.
41. Lorch, R. F. and J. L. Myers. 1990. Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1):149-157.
42. Olivier, P. and J. Tsujii. 1994. Quantitative perceptual representation of prepositional semantics. Artificial Intelligence Review, 8:147-158.
43. Regier, T and L. Carlson. 2001. Grounding spatial language in perception: An empirical and computational investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2):273-298.
44. Treisman, A. and S. Gormican. 1988. Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search assymetries. Psychological Review, 95:15-48.
45. Tseng, J. L. 2000. The Representation and Selection of Prepositions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
46. Varges, S. 2004. Overgenerating referring expressions involving relations and booleans. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG-04), pages 171-181, Brighton.
47. Yamada, A. 1993. Studies in Spatial Descriptions Understanding Based on Geometric Constraints Satisfaction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kyoto.