Tzu-Yang Wang
Hideaki Kuzuoka
Mai Otsuki
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
We propose to artificially manipulate participants' vocal cues, amplitude and frequency, in real time to adjust their dominance and persuasiveness during audio conferences. We implemented a prototype system and conducted two experiments. The first experiment investigated the effect of vocal cue manipulation on the perception of dominance. The results showed that participants perceived higher dominance while listening to a voice with a high amplitude and low frequency. The second experiment investigated the effect of vocal cue manipulation on persuasiveness. The results indicated that a person with a low amplitude and low frequency voice had greater persuasiveness in conversations with biased dominance, while there was no statistically significant difference in persuasiveness in conversations with unbiased dominance.
- Barbara Borkowska and Boguslaw Pawlowski. 2011. Female voice frequency in the context of dominance and attractiveness perception. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 82, 1 (2011), 55--59.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E Terry. 1952. Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons. Biometrika, Vol. 39, 3 (1952), 324--345.Google Scholar
- D. Bridge, Z. Li, M. Tsao, and J. Chiao. 2010. Universality and cultural specificity in social dominance perception: Effects of gender and culture on facial judgments. Journal of Vision, Vol. 7, 9 (mar 2010), 13--13.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David B. Buller and Judee K. Burgoon. 1986. The Effects of Vocalics and Nonverbal Sensitivity on Compliance A speech accommodation theory explanation. Human Communication Research, Vol. 13, 1 (1986), 126--144.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Judee K. Burgoon, Thomas Birk, and Michael Pfau. 1990. Nonverbal Behaviors, Persuasion, and Credibility. Human Communication Research, Vol. 17, 1 (1990), 140--169.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Judee K. Burgoon, Michelle L. Johnson, and Pamela T. Koch. 1998. The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communication Monographs, Vol. 65, 4 (1998), 308--335.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Linda L. Carli, Sj LaFleur, and Cc Loeber. 1995. Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social łdots, Vol. 68, 6 (1995), 1030--1041.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vijay Chidambaram, Yueh-Hsuan Chiang, and Bilge Mutlu. 2012. Designing Persuasive Robots: How Robots Might Persuade People Using Vocal and Nonverbal Cues. In 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '12). 293--300. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sarah A. Collins. 2000. Men's voices and women's choices. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 60, 6 (2000), 773--780.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. A. David. 1963. The Method of Paired Comparisons. Vol. 12. C. Griffin.Google Scholar
- Starkey Duncan. 1972. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 23, 2 (1972), 283--292.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James Durbin. 1951. Incomplete Blocks in Ranking Experiments. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, Vol. 4, 2 (1951), 85--90.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joyce A. Edinger and Miles L. Patterson. 1983. Nonverbal involvement and social control. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93, 1 (1983), 30--56.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David R. Feinberg, Lisa M. Debruine, Benedict C. Jones, and David I. Perrett. 2008. The role of femininity and averageness of voice pitch in aesthetic judgments of women's voices. Perception, Vol. 37, 4 (2008), 615--623.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. R. Feinberg, B. C. Jones, A. C. Little, D. M. Burt, and D. I. Perrett. 2005. Manipulations of fundamental and formant frequencies influence the attractiveness of human male voices. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 69, 3 (2005), 561--568.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laura Ferná ndez Gallardo. 2016. A Paired-Comparison Listening Test for Collecting Voice Likability Scores. Speech Communication; 12. ITG Symposium (2016), 185--189.Google Scholar
- BJ Fogg. 1998. Persuasive computers: Perspectives and research directions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 225--232. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Gerhard. 2003. Pitch extraction and fundamental frequency: History and current techniques. Technical Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Regina. 0--22 pages. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.834Google Scholar
- Calbert Graham. 2014. Fundamental Frequency Range in Japanese and English: The Case of Simultaneous Bilinguals. Phonetica, Vol. 71, 4 (2014), 271--295.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jay Hall and W. H. Watson. 1970. The Effects of a Normative Intervention on Group Decision-Making Performance. Human Relations, Vol. 23, 4 (1970), 299--317.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Judith A. Hall, Erik J. Coats, and Lavonia Smith LeBeau. 2005. Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131, 6 (2005), 898--924.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Harris. 2014. Preferred Conferencing Solutions in the Workplace IndustryView | 2014. https://www.softwareadvice.com/voip/industryview/preferred-conferencing-solutions-2014/Google Scholar
- Daniel Harris. 2015. Top Web Conferencing Functionality for Small-Business Users IndustryView | 2015. https://www.softwareadvice.com/voip/industryview/smb-web-conferencing-report-2015/Google Scholar
- Marisa Hoeschele, Michele K. Moscicki, Ken A. Otter, Harry van Oort, Kevin T. Fort, Tara M. Farrell, Homan Lee, Scott W J Robson, and Christopher B. Sturdy. 2010. Dominance signalled in an acoustic ornament. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 79, 3 (2010), 657--664.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harry Hollien and Thomas Shipp. 1972. Speaking fundamental frequency and chronologic age in males. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, Vol. 15, 1960 (1972), 155--159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susan M. Hughes, Justin K. Mogilski, and Marissa A. Harrison. 2014. The Perception and Parameters of Intentional Voice Manipulation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 38, 1 (2014), 107--127.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hiroko Itakura. 2001. Describing conversational dominance. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 33, 12 (2001), 1859--1880. arxiv: arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dinesh Babu Jayagopi, Hayley Hung, Chuohao Yeo, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2009. Modeling dominance in group conversations using nonverbal activity cues. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing, Vol. 17, 3 (2009), 501--513.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benedict C. Jones, David R. Feinberg, Lisa M. DeBruine, Anthony C. Little, and Jovana Vukovic. 2010. A domain-specific opposite-sex bias in human preferences for manipulated voice pitch. Animal Behaviour, Vol. 79, 1 (2010), 57--62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Taemie Kim, Pamela Hinds, and Alex (Sandy) Pentland. 2012. Awareness as an antidote to distance: making distributed groups cooperative and consistent. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '12) (2012), 1237--1246. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian Knutson. 1996. Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 20, 3 (sep 1996), 165--182.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aki Kondo, Kohske Takahashi, and Katsumi Watanabe. 2012. Sequential effects in face-attractiveness judgment. Perception, Vol. 41, 1 (2012), 43--49.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James Clayton Lafferty, Patrick Eady, and J. Elmers. 1974. The desert survival problem. Plymouth, Michigan: Experimental Learning Methods.Google Scholar
- Dennis Landin. 1994. The role of verbal cues in skill learning. Quest, Vol. 46, 3 (1994), 299--313.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H.M. Leet-Pellegrini. 1980. Conversational Dominance as a Function of Gender and Expertise. Language (jan 1980), 97--104.Google Scholar
- Jon K. Maner, C. Nathan Dewall, and Matthew T. Gailliot. 2008. Selective attention to signs of success: Social dominance and early stage interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 34, 4 (2008), 488--501.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19, C (jan 1986), 123--205.Google Scholar
- Chanthika Pornpitakpan. 2004. The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34, 2 (2004), 243--281.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Andrew Puts, Steven J C Gaulin, and Katherine Verdolini. 2006. Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 27, 4 (2006), 283--296.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Andrew Puts, Carolyn R. Hodges, Rodrigo A. Cá rdenas, and Steven J C Gaulin. 2007. Men's voices as dominance signals: vocal fundamental and formant frequencies influence dominance attributions among men. Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 28, 5 (2007), 340--344.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rutger Rienks and Dirk Heylen. 2005. Dominance detection in meetings using easily obtainable features. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 76--86. Google ScholarDigital Library
- William T. Rogers and Stanley S. Jones. 1975. Effects of Dominance Tendencies on Floor Holding and Interruption Behavior in Dyadic Interaction1. Human Communication Research, Vol. 1, 2 (1975), 113--122.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Klaus R. Scherer, Harvey London, and Jared J. Wolf. 1973. The voice of confidence: Paralinguistic cues and audience evaluation. Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 7, 1 (1973), 31--44.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marianne Schmid Mast. 2002. Dominance as Expressed and Inferred Through Speaking Time A Meta-Analysis. Human Communication Research, Vol. 28, 3 (2002), 420--450.Google Scholar
- Marianne Schmid Mast. 2010. Interpersonal behaviour and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonal power and behaviour model. European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 21, 1 (2010), 1--33.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marianne Schmid Mast and Gaë tan Cousin. 2013. Power, dominance, and persuasion. In Nonverbal Communication (Handbooks of Communication Science, HOCS 2), J. A. Hall and M. L. Knapp (Eds.). De Gruyter Mouton, Chapter Power, dominance, and persuasion, 613--635.Google Scholar
- Marianne Schmid Mast, Judith A. Hall, and Debra L. Roter. 2008. Caring and Dominance Affect Participants' Perceptions and Behaviors During a Virtual Medical visit. Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 23, 5 (2008), 523--527.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marianne Schmid Mast, Klaus Jonas, and Judith A. Hall. 2009. Give a Person Power and He or She Will Show Interpersonal Sensitivity: The Phenomenon and Its Why and When. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 97, 5 (2009), 835--850.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. H. Starks and H. A. David. 1961. Significance tests for paired-comparison experiments. Biometrika, Vol. 48(1/2), June (1961), 95--108.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barbara G. Tabachnick and Linda S. Fidell. 2013. Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education. 983 pages.Google Scholar
- Leila Takayama, Victoria Groom, and Clifford Nass. 2009. I 'm Sorry, Dave: I 'm Afraid I Won' t Do That: Social Aspects of Human-Agent Conflict. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2099--2108. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Tang and Brandon J. Schmeichel. 2015. Look Me in the Eye: Manipulated Eye Gaze Affects Dominance Mindsets. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 39, 2 (jun 2015), 181--194.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Louis Leon Thurstone. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, Vol. 34, 4 (1927), 273--286.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hartmut Traunmü ller and Anders Eriksson. 1994. The frequency range of the voice fundamental in the speech of male and female adults. http://www2.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/f0_m&f.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Kyle James Tusing and James Price Dillard. 2000. The sounds of dominance. Vocal precursors of perceived dominance during interpersonal influence. Human Communication Research, Vol. 26, 1 (2000), 148--171.Google Scholar
- Webrtc.org. 2016. WebRTC Home | WebRTC. https://webrtc.org/Google Scholar
- Naomi Yamashita, Andy Echenique, Toru Ishida, and Ari Hautasaari. 2013. Lost in Transmittance: How Transmission Lag Enhances and Deteriorates Multilingual Collaboration. In ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Social Computing Social Computing. ACM New York, NY, USA, 923--934. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Philip Zimbardo, Craig Haney, W Curtis Banks, and David Jaffe. 1971. THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment. August (1971).Google Scholar
- Jane Zuengler and Barbara Bent. 1991. Relative knowledge of content domain: An influence on native-non-native conversations. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 12, 4 (1991), 397--415.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Effect of Manipulated Amplitude and Frequency of Human Voice on Dominance and Persuasiveness in Audio Conferences
Recommendations
Mind The Voice!: Effect of Robot Voice Pitch, Robot Voice Gender, and User Gender on User Perception of Teleoperated Robots
CHI EA '20: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsIt is important for communication robots to offer an enjoyable interaction experience while being reasonably persuasive. It has been suggested that robots speaking in a high pitch could be perceived as more attractive than those speaking in a low pitch. ...
Pitch mean based frequency warping
ISCSLP'06: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Chinese Spoken Language ProcessingIn this paper, a novel pitch mean based frequency warping (PMFW) method is proposed to reduce the pitch variability in speech signals at the front-end of speech recognition. The warp factors used in this process are calculated based on the average pitch ...
Prosody modification for speech recognition in emotionally mismatched conditions
A degradation in the performance of automatic speech recognition systems (ASR) is observed in mismatched training and testing conditions. One of the reasons for this degradation is due to the presence of emotions in the speech. The main objective of ...
Comments