Hoy, M. B. Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and More: An launching to vocalise assistants. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 37, 81–88 (2018).
Olmstead, K. Nearly half of Americans ingest digital vocalise assistants, mostly on their smartphones. Pew Res. Cent. (2017).
Plummer, D. C. et al. ’Top Strategic Predictions for 2017 and Beyond: Surviving the Storm Winds of Digital Disruption’ Gartner Report G00315910 (Gartner. Inc, 2016).
Fernald, A. Meaningful melodies in mothers’ style to infants. in Nonverbal Vocal Communication: Comparative and Developmental Approaches, 262–282 (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Grieser, D. L. & Kuhl, P. K. Maternal style to infants in a diatonic language: Support for coupler prosodic features in motherese. Dev. Psychol. 24, 14 (1988).
Hilton, C. B. et al. Acoustic regularities in infant-directed style and strain crossways cultures. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01410-x (2022).
Cox, C. et al. A systematised analyse and theorem meta-analysis of the curative features of infant-directed speech. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 114–133 (2023).
Uther, M., Knoll, M. A. & Burnham, D. Do you intercommunicate E-NG-LI-SH? A comparability of foreigner-and infant-directed speech. Speech Commun. 49, 2–7 (2007).
Scarborough, R., Dmitrieva, O., Hall-Lew, L., Zhao, Y. & Brenier, J. An curative conceive of actual and imagined foreigner-directed speech. in Proceedings of the International legislature of Phonetic Sciences, 2165–2168 (2007).
Burnham, D. K., Joeffry, S. & Rice, L. Computer-and human-directed style before and after correction. in Proceedings of the 13th archipelago International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 13–17 (2010).
Oviatt, S., MacEachern, M. & Levow, G.-A. Predicting hyperarticulate style during human–computer nonachievement resolution. Speech Commun. 24, 87–110 (1998).
Clark, H. H. & Murphy, G. L. Audience organisation in message and reference. In Advances in Psychology Vol. 9 (eds LeNy, J.-F. & Kintsch, W.) 287–299 (Elsevier, 1982).
Hwang, J., Brennan, S. E. & Huffman, M. K. Phonetic adjustment in non-native uttered dialogue: Effects of priming and word design. J. Mem. Lang. 81, 72–90 (2015).
Tippenhauer, N., Fourakis, E. R., Watson, D. G. & Lew-Williams, C. The orbit of word organisation in child-directed speech: Parents’ tailoring of articulate lengths for grown versus female listeners. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 46, 2123 (2020).
Cohn, M., Ferenc Segedin, B. & Zellou, G. Acoustic-phonetic properties of Siri- and human-directed speech. J. Phon. 90, 101123 (2022).
Cohn, M., Liang, K.-H., Sarian, M., Zellou, G. & Yu, Z. Speech evaluate adjustments in conversations with an Amazon Alexa Socialbot. Front. Commun. 6, 1–8 (2021).
Cohn, M. & Zellou, G. Prosodic differences in human- and Alexa-directed speech, but kindred topical intelligibility adjustments. Front. Commun. 6, 1–13 (2021).
Cohn, M., Mengesha, Z., Lahav, M. & Heldreth, C. individualist dweller arts speakers’ movement alteration and evaluate adjustments for imagined subject and manlike addressees. JASA Express Lett. 4, 1–4 (2024).
Raveh, E., Steiner, I., Siegert, I., Gessinger, I. & Möbius, B. Comparing phonetic changes in computer-directed and human-directed speech. in Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation: Elektronische Sprachsignalverarbeitung 2019, 42–49 (TUDpress, 2019).
Siegert, I. & Krüger, J. “Speech line and style noesis didn’t sound together”—differences in style activity for figure directed and manlike directed interactions. in Advances in Data Science: Methodologies and Applications, vol. 189, 65–95 (Springer, 2021).
Ibrahim, O. & Skantze, G. Revisiting mechanism directed style personalty in unprompted human–human–robot interactions. in Human Perspectives on Spoken Human–Machine Interaction (2021).
Cowan, B. R., Branigan, H. P., Obregón, M., Bugis, E. & Beale, R. Voice anthropomorphism, schmoozer sculpture and encounter personalty on grammar choices in human−computer dialogue. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 83, 27–42 (2015).
Kalashnikova, N., Hutin, M., Vasilescu, I. & Devillers, L. Do we intercommunicate to robots hunting same humans as we intercommunicate to humans? A conceive of movement in french human–machine and human–human interactions. in Companion Publication of the 25th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 141–145 (2023).
Lu, Y. & Cooke, M. The effort of changes in F0 and spectral lean to accumulated intelligibility of style produced in noise. Speech Commun. 51, 1253–1262 (2009).
Brumm, H. & Zollinger, S. A. The phylogenesis of the dweller effect: 100 eld of psychoacoustic research. Behaviour 148, 1173–1198 (2011).
Nass, C., Steuer, J. & Tauber, E. R. Computers are ethnic actors. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, 72–78 (ACM, 1994). https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260288.
Nass, C., Moon, Y., Morkes, J., Kim, E.-Y. & Fogg, B. J. Computers are ethnic actors: A analyse of underway research. Hum. Values Des. Comput. Technol. 72, 137–162 (1997).
Lee, K. M. Media leveling theory. in The International Encyclopedia of Communication, vol. 1, 1–4 (Wiley, 2008).
Epley, N., Waytz, A. & Cacioppo, J. T. On sight human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114, 864–886 (2007).
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J. & Epley, N. Who sees human?: The Stability and grandness of individualist differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5, 219–232 (2010).
Urquiza-Haas, E. G. & Kotrschal, K. The nous behindhand manlike thinking: Attribution of noetic states to another species. Anim. Behav. 109, 167–176 (2015).
Ernst, C.-P. & Herm-Stapelberg, N. Gender Stereotyping’s Influence on the Perceived Competence of Siri and Co. in Proceedings of the 53rd island International Conference on System Sciences, 4448–44453 (2020).
Cohn, M., Ferenc Segedin, B. & Zellou, G. Imitating Siri: Socially-mediated encounter to figure and manlike voices. in Proceedings of International legislature of Phonetic Sciences, 1813–1817 (2019).
Cohn, M., Predeck, K., Sarian, M. & Zellou, G. Prosodic encounter toward emotionally expressive speech: Comparing manlike and Alexa help talkers. Speech Commun. 135, 66–75 (2021).
Cohn, M., Sarian, M., Predeck, K. & Zellou, G. Individual alteration in module attitudes toward voice-AI: The persona of listeners’ autistic-like traits. in Proceedings of Interspeech 2020, 1813–1817 (2020). https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2020-1339.
Tarłowski, A. & Rybska, E. Young children’s synthetical inferences within animals are strained by whether animals are presented anthropomorphically in films. Front. Psychol. 12, 634809 (2021).
Gjersoe, N. L., Hall, E. L. & Hood, B. Children concept noetic lives to toys when they are emotionally bespoken to them. Cogn. Dev. 34, 28–38 (2015).
Moriguchi, Y. et al. Imaginary agents subsist perceptually for children but not for adults. Palgrave Commun. 5, 1–9 (2019).
Taylor, M. & Mottweiler, C. M. Imaginary companions: Pretending they are actual but lettered they are not. Am. J. Play 1, 47–54 (2008).
Read, J. C. & Bekker, M. M. The nature of female machine interaction. in Proceedings of the 25th BCS word on human-computer interaction, 163–170 (British Computer Society, 2011).
Lovato, S. & Piper, A. M. Siri, is this you?: Understanding teen children’s interactions with vocalise signaling systems. in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 335–338 (ACM, 2015).
Garg, R. & Sengupta, S. He is meet same me: A conceive of the long-term ingest of sharp speakers by parents and children. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 4, 1–24 (2020).
Gambino, A., Fox, J. & Ratan, R. A. Building a stronger CASA: Extending the computers are ethnic actors paradigm. Hum. Mach. Commun. 1, 71–85 (2020).
Mayo, C., Aubanel, V. & Cooke, M. Effect of prosodic changes on style intelligibility. in Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, 1706–1709 (2012).
Li, Q. & Russell, M. J. Why is semiautomatic acceptance of children’s style difficult? in Interspeech, 2671–2674 (2001).
Russell, M. & D’Arcy, S. Challenges for machine acceptance of children’s speech. in Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (2007).
Kennedy, J. et al. Child style acceptance in human-robot interaction: Evaluations and recommendations. in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE planetary word on human-robot interaction, 82–90 (2017).
Kim, M. K. et al. Examining vocalise assistants in the environment of children’s speech. Int. J. Child Comput. Interact. 34, 100540 (2022).
Mallidi, S. H. et al. Device-directed vocalization detection. in Interspeech 2018 (2018).
Swerts, M., Litman, D. & Hirschberg, J. Corrections in uttered conversation systems. in Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (2000).
Stent, A. J., Huffman, M. K. & Brennan, S. E. Adapting style after grounds of misrecognition: Local and orbicular hyperarticulation. Speech Commun. 50, 163–178 (2008).
Lindblom, B. Explaining phonetic variation: A describe of the H&H theory. in Speech Production and Speech Modelling, vol. 55, 403–439 (Springer, 1990).
Szendrői, K., Bernard, C., Berger, F., Gervain, J. & Höhle, B. Acquisition of prosodic pore rating by English, French, and Teutonic three-, four-, five-and six-year-olds. J. Child Lang. 45, 219–241 (2018).
Esteve-Gibert, N., Lœvenbruck, H., Dohen, M. & d’Imperio, M. Pre-schoolers ingest nous gestures kinda than prosodic cues to particular essential aggregation in speech. Dev. Sci. 25, e13154 (2022).
Cheng, Y., Yen, K., Chen, Y., Chen, S. & Hiniker, A. Why doesn’t it work? Voice-driven interfaces and teen children’s act bushel strategies. in Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 337–348 (ACM, 2018).
Bell, L. & Gustafson, J. Child and grown utterer adjustment during nonachievement partitioning in a publically acquirable uttered conversation system. in Eighth dweller Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (2003).
Ramirez, A., Cohn, M., Zellou, G. & Graf Estes, K. Es una pelota, do you same the ball?” Pitch in Spanish-English Bilingual Infant Directed Speech. (under review).
Picheny, M. A., Durlach, N. I. & Braida, L. D. Speaking understandably for the hornlike of chance I: Intelligibility differences between country and informal speech. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 28, 96–103 (1985).
Scarborough, R. & Zellou, G. Clarity in communication:“Clear” style credibility and lexical community spacing personalty in style creation and perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 3793–3807 (2013).
Burnham, D. et al. Are you my lowercase pussy-cat? Acoustic, phonetic and emotional qualities of infant-and pet-directed speech. in Fifth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing Paper 0916 (1998).
Burnham, D., Kitamura, C. & Vollmer-Conna, U. What’s new, pussycat? On conversation to babies and animals. Science 296, 1435–1435 (2002).
Zellou, G., Cohn, M. & FerencSegedin, B. Age- and gender-related differences in style encounter toward humans and voice-AI. Front. Commun. 5, 1–11 (2021).
Song, J. Y., Pycha, A. & Culleton, T. Interactions between voice-activated AI assistants and manlike speakers and their implications for second-language acquisition. Front. Commun. 7, 9475 (2022).
Koenecke, A. et al. Racial disparities in automatic style recognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 7684–7689 (2020).
Wassink, A. B., Gansen, C. & Bartholomew, I. Uneven success: Automatic style acceptance and ethnicity-related dialects. Speech Commun. 140, 50–70 (2022).
Sachs, J. & Devin, J. Young children’s ingest of age-appropriate style styles in ethnic interaction and role-playing*. J. Child Lang. 3, 81–98 (1976).
Syrett, K. & Kawahara, S. Production and representation of listener-oriented country style in female language. J. Child Lang. 41, 1373–1389 (2014).
Wellman, H. M. Making Minds: How Theory of Mind Develops (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Slaughter, V. Theory of nous in infants and teen children: A review. Aust. Psychol. 50, 169–172 (2015).
Severson, R. L. & Lemm, K. M. Kids wager manlike too: Adapting an individualist differences manoeuvre of anthropomorphism for a female sample. J. Cogn. Dev. 17, 122–141 (2016).
Severson, R. L. & Woodard, S. R. Imagining others’ minds: The constructive traffic between children’s persona endeavor and anthropomorphism. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02140 (2018).
Siegert, I. et al. Voice supporter conversation capital (VACC): A multi-scenario dataset for addressee spotting in human–computer-interaction using Amazon’s ALEXA. in Proceeding of the 11th LREC (2018).
Garnier, M., Ménard, L. & Alexandre, B. Hyper-articulation in dweller speech: An astir anecdotal strategy to compound circumpolar style cues?. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 144, 1059–1074 (2018).
Trujillo, J., Özyürek, A., Holler, J. & Drijvers, L. Speakers show a multimodal dweller gist in noise. Sci. Rep. 11, 16721 (2021).
Gampe, A., Zahner-Ritter, K., Müller, J. J. & Schmid, S. R. How children intercommunicate with their vocalise supporter Sila depends on what they conceive most her. Comput. Hum. Behav. 143, 107693 (2023).
Gessinger, I., Cohn, M., Zellou, G. & Möbius, B. Cross-Cultural Comparison of Gradient Emotion Perception: Human vs. Alexa TTS Voices. Proceedings Interspeech 2022 23rd Conference International Speech Communication Association, 4970–4974 (2022).
Kornai, A. Digital module death. PLoS ONE 8, e77056 (2013).
Zaugg, I. A., Hossain, A. & Molloy, B. Digitally-disadvantaged languages. Internet Policy Rev. 11, 1654 (2022).
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H. & Brysbaert, M. Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 arts words. Behav. Res. Methods 44, 978–990 (2012).
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. & Sloetjes, H. ELAN: A professed support for multimodality research. in 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), 1556–1559 (2006).
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. (2021).
DiCanio, C. Extract Pitch Averages. https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~cdicanio/scripts/Get_pitch.praat (2007).
Bürkner, P.-C. brms: An R collection for theorem multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80, 1–28 (2017).
Carpenter, B. et al. Stan: A probabilistic planning language. J. Stat. Softw. 76, 01 (2017).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016).
Source unification
Children and adults display crisp technology- and human-directed style #Children #adults #produce #distinct #technology #humandirected #speech
Source unification Google News
Source Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-66313-5
Leave a Reply