Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Syntax on the Perception of In-Vehicle Prompts and Driving Performance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Conversational Dialogue Systems for the Next Decade

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering ((LNEE,volume 704))

  • 873 Accesses

Abstract

Advances in Natural Language Generation technically enable dialog systems to output utterances of an arbitrary length. However, in order to provide the most efficient form of interaction, the complexity of voice output needs to be adapted to individual user needs and contexts. This paper investigates the influence of syntactic complexity on user experience and primary task performance with spoken interaction representing a secondary task, such as in the automotive context. For this purpose, we validate the approach of assessing user preferences concerning voice output. On this basis, we report the results of a user study, where participants interact with a simulated dialog system producing utterances of differing syntactic complexity. We conclude that the choice of a particular syntactic structure affects primary task performance. Equally, our analyses of user preferences suggest an influence on the perception of syntactic forms dependent on individual context and user characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Number of words, av. sentence length, prop. of words > 6 characters, LIX index, Idea Density [5].

  2. 2.

    The chosen procedure was not randomized in order to investigate the perception of syntactic forms and how user preferences change depending on the awareness of syntactic structures.

  3. 3.

    No significant difference between Parts 1 and 2 was revealed (Z = \(-1.95\), p = .051, r = .16).

  4. 4.

    Two participants were excluded from analyses due to technical problems in the driving simulator.

References

  1. Aly A, Tapus A (2016) Towards an intelligent system for generating an adapted verbal and nonverbal combined behavior in human-robot interaction. Auton Robots 40(2):193–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Branigan HP, Pickering MJ, Pearson J, McLean JF (2010) Linguistic alignment between people and computers. J Pragmat 42(9):2355–2368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Buschmeier H, Baumann T, Dosch B, Kopp S, Schlangen D (2012) Combining incremental language generation and incremental speech synthesis for adaptive information presentation. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 295–303

    Google Scholar 

  4. Buschmeier H, Bergmann K, Kopp S (2009) An alignment-capable microplanner for natural language generation. In: Proceedings of the 12th European workshop on natural language generation. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 82–89

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chand V, Baynes K, Bonnici L, Farias ST (2010) Analysis of idea density (AID): a manual. University of California at Davis

    Google Scholar 

  6. Demberg V, Sayeed A, Mahr A, Müller C (2013) Measuring linguistically-induced cognitive load during driving using the ConTRe task. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM, pp 176–183

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dijkstra P, Barelds DPH (2008) Do people know what they want: a similar or complementary partner? Evol Psychol 6(4), 147470490800600,406

    Google Scholar 

  8. Engonopulos N, Sayeed A, Demberg V (2013) Language and cognitive load in a dual task environment. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, vol 35

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hu Z, Tree JF, Walker MA (2018) Modeling linguistic and personality adaptation for natural language generation. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual SIGdial meeting on discourse and dialogue, pp 20–31

    Google Scholar 

  10. Isbister K, Nass C (2000) Consistency of personality in interactive characters: verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. Int J Hum Comput Stud 53(2):251–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jokinen K (2003) Natural interaction in spoken dialogue systems. In: Proceedings of the workshop ontologies and multilinguality in user interfaces. Crete, pp 730–734

    Google Scholar 

  12. Just MA, Keller TA, Cynkar J (2008) A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak. Brain Res 1205:70–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C, Bruder C (2009) Technikaffinität erfassen- der Fragebogen TA-EG. Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme 8:196–201

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lee KM, Peng W, Jin SA, Yan C (2006) Can robots manifest personality?: an empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction. J Commun 56(4):754–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li P, Merat N, Zheng Z, Markkula G, Li Y, Wang Y (2018) Does cognitive distraction improve or degrade lane keeping performance? Analysis of time-to-line crossing safety margins. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 57:48–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mairesse F, Walker MA (2010) Towards personality-based user adaptation: psychologically informed stylistic language generation. User Model User-Adap Inter 20(3):227–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mairesse F, Walker MA (2011) Controlling user perceptions of linguistic style: trainable generation of personality traits. Comput Linguist 37(3):455–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moon Y, Nass C (1996) How “real” are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Commun Res 23(6):651–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nass C, Moon Y, Fogg BJ, Reeves B, Dryer DC (1995) Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(2):223–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pickering MJ, Garrod S (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behav Brain Sci 27(2):169–190

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pinter Y, Reichart R, Szpektor I (2016) Syntactic parsing of web queries with question intent. In: Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, pp. 670–680

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rambow O, Bangalore S, Walker MA (2001) Natural language generation in dialog systems. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on human language technology research, HLT 2001. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rammstedt B, Danner D (2016) Die Facettenstruktur des Big Five Inventory (BFI). Diagnostica

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reiter E (1994) Has a consensus NL generation architecture appeared, and is it psycholinguistically plausible? In: Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on natural language generation. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 163–170

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rieser V, Lemon O, Keizer S (2014) Natural language generation as incremental planning under uncertainty: adaptive information presentation for statistical dialogue systems. IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 22(5):979–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roth-Berghofer T, Cassens J, Sørmo F (2005) Goals and kinds of explanations in case-based reasoning. In: Wissensmanagement, pp 264–268

    Google Scholar 

  27. Spieker P (1991) Natürlichsprachliche Erklärungen in technischen Expertensystemen. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kaiserslautern

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stier D, Sigloch E (2019) Linguistic design of in-vehicle prompts in adaptive dialog systems: an analysis of potential factors involved in the perception of naturalness. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization. ACM, pp 191–195

    Google Scholar 

  29. Strayer DL, Cooper JM, Turrill J, Coleman JR, Hopman RJ (2016) Talking to your car can drive you to distraction. Cogn Res Princ Implic 1(1):16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnston WA (2003) Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. J Exp Psychol Appl 9(1):23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Strayer DL, Turrill J, Cooper JM, Coleman JR, Medeiros-Ward N, Biondi F (2015) Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Hum Factors 57(8):1300–1324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Thomas P, Czerwinski M, McDuff D, Craswell N, Mark G (2018) Style and alignment in information-seeking conversation. In: Proceedings of the 2018 conference on human information interaction & retrieval. ACM, pp 42–51

    Google Scholar 

  33. Villing J (2009) In-vehicle dialogue management – towards distinguishing between different types of workload. In: Proceedings of SiMPE, fourth workshop on speech in mobile and pervasive environments (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Warren T, Gibson E (2002) The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85(1):79–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wickens CD (2002) Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 3(2):159–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mercedes-Benz AG, Sindelfingen, Germany

    Daniela Stier, Patricia Kittel & Maria Schmidt

  2. Hildesheim University, Hildesheim, Germany

    Ulrich Heid

  3. Ulm University, Ulm, Germany

    Daniela Stier & Wolfgang Minker

Authors
  1. Daniela Stier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulrich Heid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia Kittel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wolfgang Minker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Stier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Speech Technology Group - Information Processing and Telecommunications Center (IPTC), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Luis Fernando D'Haro

  2. Department of Languages and Computer Systems, Universidad de Granada, CITIC-UGR, Granada, Spain

    Zoraida Callejas

  3. Information Science, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Ikoma, Japan

    Satoshi Nakamura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stier, D., Heid, U., Kittel, P., Schmidt, M., Minker, W. (2021). The Influence of Syntax on the Perception of In-Vehicle Prompts and Driving Performance. In: D'Haro, L.F., Callejas, Z., Nakamura, S. (eds) Conversational Dialogue Systems for the Next Decade. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 704. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8395-7_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8395-7_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-8394-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-8395-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation