Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2021.12.2.179

A Study on the In-Vehicle Voice Interaction Structure Considering Implicit context with Persistence of Conversation  

Namkung, Kiechan (Industry Academic Cooperation Foundation, Kookmin University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Convergence Society / v.12, no.2, 2021 , pp. 179-184 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, the conversation behavior of users is investigated by using in-vehicle voice interaction system. The purpose of this study is to identify the elements of conversations that the users expect in voice interactions with systems and present the structural improvements to enable the voice interactions similar to those between people. To observe the users' behavior of voice interaction in the vehicle, the data through contextual inquiry are collected and the interview contents are analyzed by using the open coding. We have been able to explore the usefulness of voice interaction features, which are of great importance in that they increase the user's satisfaction with the features and their usage persistence. This study is meaningful in analyzing the user's empirical needs for the technology of interpersonal model from the perspective of conversation.
Keywords
Conversation; Implicit context; In-vehicle interface; Persistence; Structure; Voice interaction;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 V. Alexandra & F. Adam. (2018, April). Exploring the Role of Conversational Cues in Guided Task Support with Virtual Assistants. CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (pp. 1-7). New York : ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3173574.3173782   DOI
2 C. Hannon. 2016. Gender and status in voice user interfaces. Interactions, 23 (3), 34-37. DOI : 10.1145/2897939   DOI
3 R. L. David, L. Clark, A. Quandt, B. Gary, & S. Lee. (2017). Steering the conversation: A linguistic exploration of natural language interactions with a digital assistant during simulated driving. Applied ergonomics, 63, 53-61. DOI : 10.1016/j.apergo.2017.04.003   DOI
4 S. Lee, N. Kim, M. Yang, Y. Yoo, & J. Kim. (2018, February). A Qualitative Study of User Behavior on Interacting with In-vehicle Voice User Interface. Proceedings of HICK 2018. (pp. 338-342). Korea : The HCI Society of Korea.
5 J. Shin, S.Lee, & J.Kim. (2020, February). Explore the Usability of the Driver's Voice Interface in the Vehicle. Proceedings of HICK 2020. (pp. 567-577). Korea : The HCI Society of Korea.
6 M. Mizukami, K. Yoshino, G. Neubig, D. Traum, & S. Nakamura. (2016). Analyzing the Effect of Entrainment on Dialogue Acts. In SIGDIAL Conference. (pp. 310-318).
7 D. Traum & E. Hinkelman. 1992. Conversation Acts in Task-Oriented Spoken Dialogue. Computational intelligence, 8(3), 575-599.   DOI
8 D. Bohus & E. Horvitz. (2014, November). Managing human-robot engagement with forecasts and... um... hesitations. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on multimodal interaction. (pp. 2-9). New York : ACM. DOI : 10.1145/2663204.2663241   DOI
9 K. Namkung. (2020). Research on Emotional Factors and Voice Trend by Country to be considered in Designing AI's Voice - An analysis of interview with experts in Finland and Norway. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 11(9), 91-97. DOI : 10.15207/JKCS.2020.11.9.091   DOI
10 B. Reeves & C. Nass. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11 K. Gelbrich, J. Hagel, & C. Orsingher. 2020. Emotional support from a digital assistant in technology-mediated services: Effects on customer satisfaction and behavioral persistence. International Journal of Research in Marketing. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.06.004   DOI
12 S. Cheon & M. Yeoun. 2020. Categorization of Interaction Factors through Analysis of AI Agent Using Scenarios. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 11(11), 63-74. DOI : 10.15207/JKCS.2020.11.11.063   DOI
13 S. Elo, & H. Kyngas. 2008. The qualitativecontent analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107-115. DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x   DOI
14 E. Luger & A. Sellen. (2016, May). Like having a really bad PA: the gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (pp. 5286-5297) New York : ACM. DOI : 10.1145/2858036.2858288   DOI
15 K. Morrissey & J. Kirakowski. (2013, July). "Realness" in Chatbots: Establishing Quantifiable Criteria. HCI'13: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Human-Computer Interaction: interaction modalities and techniques. (pp. 87-96). Springer. DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-39330-3_10   DOI
16 L. Yu, K. Hermann, P. Blunsom, & S. Pulman. (2014, December). Deep learning for answer sentence selection. arXiv, preprint arXiv:1412.1632.