Acoustic and prosodic correlates of social behavior

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 97-100

  Gravano, Agustín ^a   Levitan, Rivka ^b   Willson, Laura ^b   Beňuš, Štefan ^c   Hirschberg, Julia ^b   Nenkova, Ani ^d  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE BUENOS AIRES   (Argentina)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^c The Philosopher University in Nitra Geoinformatics and Regional Development   (Slovakia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Crowdsourced annotation; Dialogue perception; Social variables

Indexed keywords

CROWDSOURCED ANNOTATION; LIKEABILITY; MECHANICAL TURKS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL VARIABLES; SPEECH PLANNING; SPONTANEOUS SPEECH;

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS;

EID: 84865745000     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19909772     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. J. Ang, R. Dhillon, A. Krupski, E. Shriberg, A. Stolcke. 2002. Prosody-Based Automatic Detection of Annoyance and Frustration in Human-Computer Dialog. INTERSPEECH.
2. C.M. Lee, S.S. Narayanan. 2002. Combining acoustic and language information for emotion recognition. ICSLP.
3. J. Liscombe, J. Venditti, J. Hirschberg. 2003. Classifying Subject Ratings of Emotional Speech Using Acoustic Features. INTERSPEECH.
4. A. Rosenberg, J. Hirschberg. 2005. Acoustic/prosodic and lexical correlates of charismatic speech. EUROSPEECH.
5. F. Mairesse, M. Walker. 2008. Trainable generation of big-five personality styles through data-driven parameter estimation. ACL.
6. S. S. Rude, E. M. Gortner, J. W. Pennebaker. 2004. Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18:1121-1133.
7. F. Enos, E. Shriberg, M. Graciarena, J. Hirschberg, A. Stolcke. 2007. Detecting Deception Using Critical Segments. INTERSPEECH.
8. D. Jurafsky, R. Ranganath, D. McFarland, 2009. Extracting social meaning: Identifying interactional style in spoken conversation. NAACL-HLT.
9. S. E. Brennan, M. Williams. 1995. The feeling of another's knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34:383-398.
10. E. Blaauw, 1994, The contribution of prosodic boundary markers to the perceptual difference between read and spontaneous speech, Speech Commun. 14(4): 359-375.
11. R. Martin, J. Crowther, M. Knight, F. Tamborello, C. L. Yang, Planning in sentence production: Evidence for the phrase as a default planning scope, Cognition 116:177-192.
12. J. Krivokapic, 2010. Speech Planning and Prosodic Phrase Length, 5th Internat. Conf. on Speech Prosody.
13. A. Gravano, J. Hirschberg, 2011. Turn-taking cues in task-oriented dialogue, Computer Speech and Language, 25(3): 601-634.
14. A. Gravano, J. Hirschberg, Š. Beňuš. Affirmative cuewords in task-oriented dialogue, Computational Linguistics. In press.
15. M.E. Beckman, J. Hirschberg, 1994. The ToBI Annotation Conventions. Ohio State University.
16. P. Boersma, D. Weenink, 2001. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, http://www.praat.org.
17. Amazon Mechanical Turk, http://www.mturk.com.
18. A. Ratnaparkhi, E. Brill, K. Church, 1996. A maximum entropy model for part-of-speech tagging, EMNLP.
19. C. Whissel, 1989. The Dictionary of affect in language. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, Research and Experience (pp. 113-131). Academic Press.