Do Bystanders and Dialog Participants Differ in Preferences for Telecommunications Channels? -- The Effects of Noise and Delay -- Nigel Ward Anais G. Rivera.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Providing Independent Living Support: Effective and Respectful Communication Trainer:_______ Date: _______.
Advertisements

IP Cablecom and MEDIACOM 2004 Prediction and Monitoring of Quality for VoIP services Quality for VoIP services Vincent Barriac – France Télécom R&D SG12.
Methodology and Explanation XX50125 Lecture 2: Experiments Dr. Danaë Stanton Fraser.
Methodology and Explanation XX50125 Lecture 1: Part I. Introduction to Evaluation Methods Part 2. Experiments Dr. Danaë Stanton Fraser.
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
While you are waiting for this session to begin please make sure your audio is working. Go to the Tools menu, select Audio and then Audio setup wizard.
Assessment Photo Album Science Fair Project
Communication Transferring information from one person to another. Communication is used to instruct, clarify interpret, notify, warn, receive feedback,
Developing a Questionnaire
Robin L. Donaldson May 5, 2010 Prospectus Defense Florida State University College of Communication and Information.
DEALING WITH WEBINAR DIFFICULTIES. Lesson content 1. Introduction 2. Broken line 3. Web camera/ear phones 4. Configuration 5. Sound 6. Power outage 7.
Questionnaire Design Sudman & Bradburn (1988).  Question wording is a crucial element in maximizing the validity of survey data obtained by a questionnaire.
Communicating and Competence. Communication Competence  Integrating the model: Awareness=Intelligence=Competence.
ACTIVELY ENGAGING THE STAKEHOLDER IN DEFINING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUSINESS, THE STAKEHOLDER, SOLUTION OR TRANSITION Requirements Elicitation.
Speech codecs and DCCP with TFRC VoIP mode Magnus Westerlund
1 TAC2000/ IP Telephony Lab Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality (PESQ) Speaker: Wen-Jen Lin Date: Dec
Christian Schmidmer, OPTICOM1 Subjective Quality Testing - Voice & Audio.
The art and science of measuring people l Reliability l Validity l Operationalizing.
Top Level System Block Diagram BSS Block Diagram Abstract In today's expanding business environment, conference call technology has become an integral.
1 E-Model & MOS Speaker: Cheng-lin Tsai Adviser: Quincy Wu Date:2009/07/02.
Evaluating with experts
Nov. 3, 2000 Adaptive Playout Scheduling in Packet Voice Communications.
Communication Ms. Morris.
LINC 2007 M-Learning from a Cell Phone: Improving Students’ EMP Learning Experience through Interactive SMS Platform By: Jafar Asgari Arani
Objective and Subjective Degradations of Transcoded Voice for Heterogeneous Radio Networks Interoperability Ľubica Blašková 1, Jan Holub 1, Michael Street.
Chapter 8 communication skills Section 8.1 Defining Communication
By: Raneisha Appleberry CELL PHONE ETIQUETTE. IN ALL SITUATIONS: Use caller ID to determine whether to answer a call. If it is urgent or you don’t risk.
Sound Locatability Tests Comparative Locatability Tests of Warning Signals.
Now that you know what assessment is, you know that it begins with a test. Ch 4.
Say it, learn it, own it! Increasing student understanding through engaging conversations.
ACE TESOL Diploma Program – London Language Institute OBJECTIVES You will understand: 1. The challenges of assessing student speaking ability. 2. Various.
Spec help documentation
1 TTC‘s Standardization Work Network Management Committee “A Method for Speech Quality Assessment of IP Telephony”
V Telecommunications Industry AssociationTR XXX.
Copyrights © All rights Reserved. Asterisk and VoIP issues Chetan Vaity March 2007.
A Study in Cross-Cultural Interpretations of Back-Channeling Behavior Yaffa Al Bayyari Nigel Ward The University of Texas at El Paso Department of Computer.
VQEG MM Phase 2 Working document towards a project plan.
Social and academic stereotypes and their Impact on students Keller (2002) Gender Schmader, Johns & Barquissau (2004) Gender Aronson, Fried & Good (2002)
Tratamiento Digital de Voz Prof. Luis A. Hernández Gómez ftp.gaps.ssr.upm.es/pub/TDV/DOC/ Tema2c.ppt Dpto. Señales, Sistemas y Radiocomunicaciones.
Colombia, September 2013 The importance of models and procedures for planning, monitoring and control in the provision of communications services.
Psychology 3.2 Alternatives to imprisonment. Psychology Learning outcomes Probation (Mair, G. and May, C. (1997) Offenders on Probation, Home Office Research.
Chapter 3.2 Speech Communication Human Performance Engineering Robert W. Bailey, Ph.D. Third Edition.
Use voice mail to leave a brief message if the recipient doesn’t answer. Avoid using profanity in public, no matter what vocal volume you use.
Individual Preferences for Uncertainty: An Ironically Pleasurable Stimulus Bankert, M., VanNess, K., Hord, E., Pena, S., Keith, V., Urecki, C., & Buchholz,
LREC 2008, May 26 – June 1, Marrakesh Speaker Recognition: Building the Mixer 4 and 5 Corpora Linda Brandschain, Christopher Cieri, David Graff, Abby Neely,
Advanced Higher Physics Investigation Report. Hello, and welcome to Advanced Higher Physics Investigation Presentation.
A methodology for the creation of a forensic speaker recognition database to handle mismatched conditions Anil Alexander and Andrzej Drygajlo Swiss Federal.
Listening Introduction to Speech. Listening This skill begins with a decision. Hearing comes naturally, but listening is a learned social skill. You have.
Hearing Aid (HA) and Cochlear Implant (CI) users provided subjective ratings of usability for speech-to-interference ratios (SIRs) presented in a single-interval,
Material prepared by W. Grover ( ) 1 EE489 – Telecommunication Systems Engineering –University of Alberta, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Check whether these things are on your desk. If not, please raise your hand. –Pen –Receipt –“Summary of the experiment” Fill in the receipt following the.
Psych 120 General Psychology Christopher Gade Office: 1030A Office hours: MW 4:30-5:30 Class MW 1:30-4:30 Room 2240.
Listening (It’s just as important as speaking!). Listening v. Hearing What is hearing? The act of receiving sound What is listening? The 4-step process.
PART2: VOIP AND CRITICAL PARAMETERS FOR A VOIP DEPLOYMENT Voice Performance Measurement and related technologies 1.
Chapter 15: Analytical evaluation. Aims: Describe inspection methods. Show how heuristic evaluation can be adapted to evaluate different products. Explain.
 Participation in our discussion and activities  Respect of other’s thoughts and opinions  Stay until the class is finished  Please turn your cell.
Preference and Reinforcer Assessments Michael F. Dorsey, Ph.D., BCBA.
Alan Clark Telchemy Modeling the effects of Burst Packet Loss and Recency on Subjective Voice Quality Alan Clark Telchemy
How we actively interpret our environment..  Perception: The process in which we understand sensory information.  Illusions are powerful examples of.
 Communication Barriers. Learning Goals  5. I will be able to explain obstacles/barriers to effective communication  6. I will be able to suggest ways.
IINDIVIDUAL LEARNING STYLE IN LANGUAGE LEARNING. Most children and adults can master some content - how they master, it is determined by individual learning.
CEN3722 Human Computer Interaction User Testing
VoIP over Wireless Networks
(It’s just as important as speaking!)
The Relationship Between Emphasis of Cell-phone Use on Performance and Anxiety: Classroom Implications Jordan Booth, Leah Cotton, Jeni Dillman, Kealey.
Head Phone By Yash jain ECE.
Nigel G. Ward, Anais G. Rivera, Karen Ward, David G. Novick
(It’s just as important as speaking!)
Focus Groups.
Presentation transcript:

Do Bystanders and Dialog Participants Differ in Preferences for Telecommunications Channels? -- The Effects of Noise and Delay -- Nigel Ward Anais G. Rivera Alejandro Vega University of Texas at El Paso Why?

The Mystery Mobile telephone conversations are often banned because they can be annoying to bystanders. But why are they more annoying than face-to-face conversations? Is it the volume? Perhaps in part, but cell phone conversations are more annoying even when no louder than face-to-face conversations (Monk et al. 2004a) Is it the lack of an audible interlocutor, inducing a psychological “need to listen”? Perhaps in part, but this doesn’t explain the annoyance (Monk et al. 2004b)

Is it the Channel? Transmission Rating Factor (ITU-T Rec G.107) R = Ro – Is –Id –Ie-eff + A But what about bystander preferences? Channel properties affect user perceptions. The E-model can predict these, for infrastructure design purposes. Ro = signal-to-noise ratio Is = simultaneous impairment Id = delay impairment factor Ie-eff = equipment impairment factor (e.g. codec) A = advantage factor

Potential Significance Hypothesis 1: For telecommunication channels, bystanders preferences differ from users preferences If true, there may be a technological fix to the problem Today: In a Possible Future: NO B>70 PHONES!

Perceptions of Delay We know that delay affects talkers’ perceptions

(Emling & Mitchell 1964) How Line Delay Affects Conversation Dynamics Likely 1 st Order Effects: more awkward silences more overlaps Likely 2 nd Order Effects: more explicit turn-taking cues

annoyance lack of audible interlocutor feeling of embarrassment channel properties involuntary listening delay noise echo negative attitudes to cell phones handset properties lack of sidetone low volume negative impressions of talker bossy show-off insensitive etc. changed speaking style loud exaggerated prosody etc. different situation at remote end incongruous speaking styles incongruous topic lack of shared awareness cognitive effects uncertainty about receipt frustration cognitive load Likely Effects on Bystanders

Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis: Bystanders dislike channel delay more than do talkers where we measure “more” relative to a standard impairment: codec quality

Experiment Design High Noise Low Delay (C n ) Bystanders’ Perception Talkers’ Perception good Low Noise High Delay (C d ) less goodgood T Δ = T Cn - T Cd B Δ = B Cn - B Cd Hypothesis 2: compared to talkers, bystanders dislike delay more i.e. T Δ < B Δ, i.e. T Δ - B Δ < 0 unfortunately not supported by Wilcoxon sign test, chi-square, or matched-pairs t-test G ms GSM-FR 150 ms

Software/Hardware Configuration channels emulated on Linux machines talkers in different rooms extra delay (C D ) or extra noise (C N ) recorder

Procedures 1.welcome 2.dialog with Cn or Cd 3.questionnaire 4.dialog with Cd or Cn 5.questionnaire 6.debrief 1.welcome 2.overhear 3.questionnaire 4.overhear 5.questionnaire 6.debrief Two TalkersTwo to Eight Bystanders usually with same stimuli, different judges sometimes with same judges, different stimuli (when talkers were later used as bystanders) sometimes with same judges, same stimuli (when talkers later listened to recordings of themselves)

Experiment Conditions (1) Distance from Talker to Bystanders > 4 meters ~ 2 meters ~ 0.5 meters Distractors pizza and friends magazines none (paying attention) Dialog Content Cn Cd multi-digit number exchange free dialog single-digit number exchange

Experiment Conditions (2) Presentation live recorded, played over speakers matched-content extracts, headphones Subjects naive students experts Survey Format forced choice 4 choices 11 point scales

Results TΔ = talker preference re channel quality (Cn – Cd) BΔ = bystander preference re less-annoying (Cn – Cd)

Results On the last experiment: Subjects’ preferences for Cn over Cd, as talkers and as bystanders

Summary Summary results for Hypothesis 2: Across 59 dialog stimulus-pairs, in various conditions - bystanders seemed to dislike Cn more than did talkers, contrary to hypothesis 2 - however the difference was small and not consistent (averaging 1.42 vs 1.47 on a scale from 0 to 3) Even under unrealistically exaggerated conditions, line delay does not consistently impact bystanders Summary Results for Hypothesis 1: No evidence that bystanders and dialog participants differ in preferences The Mystery Remains

Do Bystanders and Dialog Participants Differ in Preferences for Telecommunications Channels? -- The Effects of Noise and Delay -- Nigel Ward Anais G. Rivera Alejandro Vega University of Texas at El Paso

Do Bystanders and Dialog Participants Differ in Preferences for Telecommunications Channels? -- The Effects of Noise and Delay -- Nigel Ward Anais G. Rivera Alejandro Vega University of Texas at El Paso Why?

Dialog-Based Evaluation of Mobile Phone Infrastructure Phase 1 A. Your opinion of the connection you have just been using. (Please place a line crossing the axis at the appropriate point.) excellent good fair poor bad first dialog second dialog B. What differences did you notice between the two connections? C. What do you think affected your ratings of the two connections? date ___________ session ________ subject A B recording# 1 _________ recording# 2 _________ T excellent good fair poor bad

Dialog-Based Evaluation of Mobile Phone Infrastructure Phase 2 A. Sometimes conversations can be annoying to bystanders, independent of the content, due to the way the the speaker was talking. Considering the potential for annoyance due to the speaking style, please give your opinion of the sample. (Please place a line crossing the axis at the appropriate point.) excellent good fair poor bad first dialog second dialog B. What differences did you notice between the two samples? C. What do you think affected your ratings of the two samples? date ___________ session ______ subject A B recording# 1 _________ recording# 2 _________ B excellent good fair poor bad

Dialog-Based Evaluation of Mobile Phone Infrastructure Phase 3 date ___________ session ______ subject A B recording# 1 _________ recording# 2 _________ R A. Sometimes conversations can be annoying to bystanders, independent of the content, due to the way the the speaker was talking. Considering the potential for annoyance due to the speaking style, please give your opinion of the sample. (Please place a line crossing the axis at the appropriate point.) excellent good fair poor bad first dialog second dialog B. What differences did you notice between the two samples? C. What do you think affected your ratings of the two samples? excellent good fair poor bad