Machine Body Language: Expressing a Smart Speaker’s Activity with Intelligible Physical Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People’s physical movement and body language implicitly convey what they think and feel, are doing or are about to do. In contrast, current smart speakers miss out on this richness of body language, primarily relying on voice commands only. We present QUBI, a dynamic smart speaker that leverages expressive physical motion – stretching, nodding, turning, shrugging, wiggling, pointing and leaning forwards/backwards – to convey cues about its underlying behaviour and activities. We conducted a qualitative Wizard of Oz lab study, in which 12 participants interacted with QUBI in four scripted scenarios. From our study, we distilled six themes: (1) mirroring and mimicking motions; (2) body language to supplement voice instructions; (3) anthropomorphism and personality; (4) audio can trump motion; (5) reaffirming uncertain interpretations to support mutual understanding; and (6) emotional reactions to QUBI’s behaviour. From this, we discuss design implications for future smart speakers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".