MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896893982 · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwz016

The State of Speech in HCI: Trends, Themes and Challenges

2019· article· en· W2896893982 on OpenAlexaff
Leigh Clark, Philip R. Doyle, Diego Garaialde, Emer Gilmartin, Stephan Schlögl, Jens Edlund, Matthew P. Aylett, João P. Cabral, Cosmin Munteanu, Justin Edwards, Benjamin R. Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueInteracting with Computers · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersIrish Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceUsabilityHuman–computer interactionPopularityUser interfaceSpeech technologyInterface (matter)Speech synthesisPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Speech interfaces are growing in popularity. Through a review of 99 research papers this work maps the trends, themes, findings and methods of empirical research on speech interfaces in the field of human–computer interaction (HCI). We find that studies are usability/theory-focused or explore wider system experiences, evaluating Wizard of Oz, prototypes or developed systems. Measuring task and interaction was common, as was using self-report questionnaires to measure concepts like usability and user attitudes. A thematic analysis of the research found that speech HCI work focuses on nine key topics: system speech production, design insight, modality comparison, experiences with interactive voice response systems, assistive technology and accessibility, user speech production, using speech technology for development, peoples’ experiences with intelligent personal assistants and how user memory affects speech interface interaction. From these insights we identify gaps and challenges in speech research, notably taking into account technological advancements, the need to develop theories of speech interface interaction, grow critical mass in this domain, increase design work and expand research from single to multiple user interaction contexts so as to reflect current use contexts. We also highlight the need to improve measure reliability, validity and consistency, in the wild deployment and reduce barriers to building fully functional speech interfaces for research. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS Most papers focused on usability/theory-based or wider system experience research with a focus on Wizard of Oz and developed systems Questionnaires on usability and user attitudes often used but few were reliable or validated Thematic analysis showed nine primary research topics Challenges identified in theoretical approaches and design guidelines, engaging with technological advances, multiple user and in the wild contexts, critical research mass and barriers to building speech interfaces

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0150.016
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations189
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteracting with ComputersSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207