MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415356159 · doi:10.1121/10.0039572

Variable delay affects conversational turn-taking behavior in the presence of background noise

2025· article· en· W4415356159 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Masters, Ewen MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDuration (music)Noise (video)Variable (mathematics)Background noiseAffect (linguistics)PerceptionLine (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have observed that the duration and variability of floor-transfer offsets (FTO) increase when communication becomes more difficult, such as in the presence of background noise. Additionally, talkers have been shown to adapt their communication behavior when difficulty is increased only for their conversational partner. This study aims to examine whether changes in the timing of FTOs are utilized as a cue by talkers to determine if their partner(s) are experiencing difficulty in communication. A real-time processing system was implemented to randomly vary the delay in a communication line between two talkers so as to alter the duration and variability of FTOs perceived by both talkers. The findings, based on dyadic conversations taking place in both the presence and absence of background noise, with and without delay, reveal that the manipulation of perceived FTO timing does elicit behavioral changes, but only when background noise is also present. This suggests that, when there is an expectation of difficulty, the timing of FTOs may be used as a cue to infer the difficulty level of a conversational partner.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207