Influencing factors on multimodal interaction during selection tasks

Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 299-310

  Schüssel, Felix ^a   Honold, Frank ^a   Weber, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Gender differences; Input; Multimodal interaction; Natural human computer interaction; Output; Selection task; User study

Indexed keywords

GENDER DIFFERENCES; INPUT; MULTI-MODAL INTERACTIONS; NATURAL HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTIONS; OUTPUT; SELECTION TASK; USER STUDY;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; SIGNAL PROCESSING; USER INTERFACES;

INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS;

EID: 84891748745     PISSN: 17837677     EISSN: 17838738     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12193-012-0117-5     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bellik Y, Rebaï I, Machrouh E, Barzaj Y, Jacquet C, Pruvost G, Sansonnet JP (2009) Multimodal interaction within ambient environments: an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 international conference on human-computer interaction: part II, INTERACT '09, Springer, Berlin, pp 89-92. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-642-03658-3-13.
2. Chelazzi L (1999) Serial attention mechanisms in visual search: a critical look at the evidence. Psychol Res 62: 195-219.
3. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992) Professional manual: revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment Resources.
4. De Angeli A, Gerbino W, Cassano G, Petrelli D (1998) Visual display, pointing, and natural language: the power of multimodal interaction. In: Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces, AVI '98, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 164-173. doi: 10. 1145/948496. 948519.
5. Frank AU (1998) Formal models for cognition-taxonomy of spatial location description and frames of reference. In: Freksa C, Habel C, Wender KF (eds) Spatial cognition. Springer, Berlin, pp 293-312.
6. Gerhard U, Borkenau P, Ostendorf F (1993) NEO-Fünf-Faktoren inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie 28(2): 145-146. doi: 10. 1026/0084-5345. 28. 2. 145.
7. Huang X, Oviatt SL, Lunsford R (2006) Combining user modeling and machine learning to predict users' multimodal integration patterns. In: Renals S, Bengio S, Fiscus JG (eds) Machine learning for multimodal interaction, 3rd international workshop, MLMI 2006, Bethesda, MD, USA, 1-4 May 2006, revised selected papers, lecture notes in computer science, vol 4299/2006, Springer, Berlin, pp 50-62. doi: 10. 1007/11965152-5.
8. Jöst M, Häußler J, Merdes M, Malaka R (2005) Multimodal interaction for pedestrians: an evaluation study. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, IUI '05, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 59-66. doi: 10. 1145/1040830. 1040852.
9. Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C, Bruder C (2009) Technikaffinität erfassen-der Fragebogen TA-EG. Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme 8. Berliner Werkstatt Mensch-Maschine-Systeme 7. bis 9. Oktober 2009 (ZMMS Spektrum) 22(29): 196-201.
10. Kieffer S, Carbonell N (2007) How really effective are multimodal hints in enhancing visual target spotting? some evidence from a usability study. CoRR abs/0708. 3575. http://dblp. uni-trier. de/db/journals/corr/corr0708. html.
11. Kieffer S, Carbonell N (2007) Oral messages improve visual search. CoRR abs/0709. 0428.
12. Kipp M (2001) Anvil-a generic annotation tool for multimodal dialogue. In: Proceedings of EUROSPEECH 2001, Aalborg, Denmark, pp 1367-1370.
13. Körner A, Drapeau M, Albani C, Geyer M, Schmutzer G, Brähler E (2008) Deutsche Normierung des NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventars (NEO-FFI). Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie 17(2-3): 133-144.
14. Mairesse F, Walker MA, Mehl MR, Moore RK (2007) Using linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text. J Artif Intell Res 30: 457-501.
15. Mignot C, Valot C, Carbonell N (1993) An experimental study of future "natural" multimodal human-computer interaction. In: INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, CHI '93, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 67-68. doi: 10. 1145/259964. 260075.
16. Oviatt S (1999) Ten myths of multimodal interaction. Commun ACM 42(11): 74-81.
17. Oviatt S, Coulston R, Lunsford R (2004) When do we interact multimodally?: cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns. In: ICMI '04, proceedings of the 6th international conference on multimodal interfaces, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 129-136. doi: 10. 1145/1027933. 1027957.
18. Ratzka A (2008) Explorative studies on multimodal interaction in a pda- and desktop-based scenario. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on multimodal interfaces, ICMI '08, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 121-128. http://doi. acm. org/10. 1145/1452392. 1452416.
19. Reis T, de SM, Carrio L (2008) Multimodal interaction: real context studies on mobile digital artefacts. In: Pirhonen A, Brewster S (eds) Haptic and audio interaction design, lecture notes in computer science, vol 5270, Springer, Berlin, pp 60-69. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-540-87883-4-7.
20. Ren X, Zhang G, Dai G (2000) An experimental study of input modes for multimodal human-computer interaction. In: Tan T, Shi Y, Gao W (eds) Advances in multimodal interfaces ICMI 2000, lecture notes in computer science, vol 1948, Springer, Berlin, pp 49-56. doi: 10. 1007/3-540-40063-X-7.
21. Wasinger R, Krüger A (2006) Modality preferences in mobile and instrumented environments. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, IUI '06, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 336-338. doi: 10. 1145/1111449. 1111529.