Continuous Interaction with a Virtual Human

Attentive Speaking and Active Listening require that a Virtual Human be capable of simultaneous perception/interpretation and production of communicative behavior. A Virtual Human should be able to signal its attitude and attention while it is listening to its interaction partner, and be able to attend to its interaction partner while it is speaking – and modify its communicative behavior on-the-fly based on what it perceives from its partner. This report presents the results of a four week summer project that was part of eNTERFACE’10. The project resulted in progress on several aspects of continuous interaction such as scheduling and interrupting multimodal behavior, automatic classification of listener responses, generation of response eliciting behavior, and models for appropriate reactions to listener responses. A pilot user study was conducted with ten participants. In addition, the project yielded a number of deliverables that are released for public access

Perception of non-verbal emotional listener feedback

This paper reports on a listening test assessing the perception of short non-verbal emotional vocalisations emitted by a listener as feedback to the speaker. We clarify the concepts backchannel and feedback, and investigate the use of affect bursts as a means of giving emotional feedback via the backchannel. Experiments with German and Dutch subjects confirm that the recognition of emotion from affect bursts in a dialogical context is similar to their perception in isolation. We also investigate the acceptability of affect bursts when used as listener feedback. Acceptability appears to be linked to display rules for emotion expression. While many ratings were similar between Dutch and German listeners, a number of clear differences was found, suggesting language-specific affect bursts

Needs before means: the dialectics of learning and technology

The general argument advanced in this paper is that in the changing context of present-day higher education it is vital that our educational purposes and student needs are clarified before decisions are taken about the means, including the use of learning technology, of satisfying those purposes and needs. The development of a critical understanding is still seen as the central purpose of higher education even in the context of a more vocationally relevant mass higher education. It is argued here that dialogue is the key to critical learning based on a process of dialectical communication. The task then is to construct an understanding learning environment which fosters interaction between students, staff and resources, reconciling individual needs with collective purposes. The specific role of learning technology as a means of encouraging dialogue within a learning environment is illustrated through examples of language learning such as TLTP CKS33 and the RACE Hipernet Project. Through a dialectical process, the appropriate use of learning technologies in meeting students' changing needs can be progressively refined

Research methods and intelligibility studies

This paper first briefly reviews the concept of intelligibility as it has been employed in both English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and world Englishes (WE) research. It then examines the findings of the Lingua Franca Core (LFC), a list of phonological features that empirical research has shown to be important for safeguarding mutual intelligibility between non-native speakers of English. The main point of the paper is to analyse these findings and demonstrate that many of them can be explained if three perspectives (linguistic, psycholinguistic and historical-variationist) are taken. This demonstration aims to increase the explanatory power of the concept of intelligibility by providing some theoretical background. An implication for ELF research is that at the phonological level, internationally intelligible speakers have a large number of features in common, regardless of whether they are non-native speakers or native speakers. An implication for WE research is that taking a variety-based, rather than a features-based, view of phonological variation and its connection with intelligibility is likely to be unhelpful, as intelligibility depends to some extent on the phonological features of individual speakers, rather than on the varieties per se