Towards efficient human machine speech communication: The speech graffiti project

ABSTRACT

This research investigates the design and performance of the Speech Graffiti interface for spoken interaction with simple machines. Speech Graffiti is a standardized interface designed to address issues inherent in the current state-of-the-art in spoken dialog systems such as high word-error rates and the difficulty of developing natural language systems. This article describes the general characteristics of Speech Graffiti, provides examples of its use, and describes other aspects of the system such as the development toolkit. We also present results from a user study comparing Speech Graffiti with a natural language dialog system. These results show that users rated Speech Graffiti significantly better in several assessment categories. Participants completed approximately the same number of tasks with both systems, and although Speech Graffiti users often took more turns to complete tasks than natural language interface users, they completed tasks in slightly less time.

REFERENCES

• 1: Baber, C. 1991. Human factors aspects of automatic speech recognition in control room environments. In Proceedings of IEEE Colloquium on Systems and Applications of Man-Machine Interaction Using Speech I/O. 10/1--10/3.
• 2: Black, A. and Lenzo, K. 2000. Limited domain synthesis. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ISCLP'00). Beijing, China. 411--414.
• 3: Black, A., Taylor, P., and Caley, R. 1998. The festival speech synthesis system. Available at http://www.cstr.ed.ac.uk/projects/festival.html.
• 4: Blickenstorfer, C. H. 1995. Graffiti: Wow!!!! Pen Comput. Mag., (Jan:30-31).
• 5: Clarkson, P. and Rosenfeld, R. 1997. Statistical language modeling using the CMU-Cambridge toolkit. In Proceedings of Eurospeech. Rhodes, Greece. 2707--2710.
• 6: Eskenazi, M., Rudnicky, A., Gregory, K., Constantinides, P., Brennan, R., Bennett, C., and Allen, J. 1999. Data collection and processing in the Carnegie Mellon Communicator. In Proceedings of Eurospeech. 2695--2698.
• 7: Glass, J. 1999. Challenges for spoken dialogue systems. In Proceedings of IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition (ASRU) Workshop. Keystone, CO.
• 8: Grice, H. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, NY. 41--58.
• 9: Guzman, S., Warren, R., Ahlenius, M., and Neves, D. 2001. Determining a set of acoustically discriminable, intuitive command words. In Proceedings of AVIOS Speech Technology Symposium (AVIOS'01). San Jose, CA. 241--250.
• 10: Harris, T. K. and Rosenfeld, R. A. 2004. A universal speech interface for appliances. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP'04). Jeju Island, South Korea.
• 11: Hone, K. and Graham, R. 2001. Subjective assessment of speech-system interface usability. In Proceedings of Eurospeech, Aalborg, Denmark.
• 12: Huang, D., Alleva, F., Hon, H. W., Hwang, M. Y., Lee, K. F., and Rosenfeld, R. 1993. The Sphinx-II speech recognition system: An overview. Comput. Speech Lang. 7, 2, 137--148.
• 13: Gary Perlman, Natural artificial languages: low level processes, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.20 n.4, p.373-419, April 1984 [doi>10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80075-9]
• 14: Ben Shneiderman, Software psychology: Human factors in computer and information systems (Winthrop computer systems series), Winthrop Publishers, 1980
• 15: Stefanie Shriver , Roni Rosenfeld, Keywords for a universal speech interface, CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA [doi>10.1145/506443.506567]
• 16: Sidner, C. and Forlines, C. 2002. Subset languages for conversing with collaborative interface agents. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP'02). Denver, CO. 281--284.
• 17: Mike Cohen, Universal commands for telephony-based spoken language systems, ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, v.32 n.2, p.25-29, April 2000 [doi>10.1145/360405.360432]
• 18: Tomko, S. 2004. Speech Graffiti: Assessing the user experience. Carnegie Mellon University. LTI Tech Rep. CMU-LTI-04-185, Available at: www.cs.cmu.edu/∼stef/papers/mthesis.ps
• 19: Toth, A., Harris, T., Sanders, J., Shriver, S., and Rosenfeld, R. 2002. Towards every-citizen's speech interface: An application generator for speech interfaces to databases. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Denver, CO. 1497--1500.
• 20: Wayne Ward, The CMU air travel information service: understanding spontaneous speech, Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language, p.127-129, June 24-27, 1990, Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania [doi>10.3115/116580.116621]
• 21: Elizabeth Zoltan-Ford, How to get people to say and type what computers can understand, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.34 n.4, p.527-547, April 1991 [doi>10.1016/0020-7373(91)90034-5]
• 22: Zue, V., Seneff, S., Glass, J. R., Polifroni, J., Pao, C., Hazen, T. J., and Hetherington, L. 2000. JUPITER: A telephone-based conversational interface for weather information. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 8, 1, 85--96.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Voice I/O

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Natural language; Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation)

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
Human-computer interaction, speech recognition, spoken dialog systems