Towards interactional symbiosis: Epistemic balance and co-presence in a quantified self-experiment

by | Apr 22, 2017 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Nicolas Rollet
  • Varun Jain
  • Christian Licoppe
  • Laurence Devillers

Abstract:

In the frame of an experiment dealing with quantified self and reflexivity, we collected audio-video data that provide us with material to discuss the ways in which the participants would work out social synergy through co-presence management and epistemic balance – accounting for their orientation towards the familiar symbiotic nature of human interactions. Following a Conversational Analysis perspective, we believe that detailed analysis of interactional behaviors offers opportunities for socially interactive robots design improvements, that is: identify and reproduce human ordinary skills in order to make the machines more adaptable.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57753-1_13

References:
  1. Aura. https://www.withings.com/eu/en/products/aura
  2. 2.Bergmann, J.: Veiled morality: notes on discretion in psychiatry. In: Drew, P., Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work, pp. 137–162. CUP, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.Boucsein, W.: Electrodermal Activity. Plenum, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.Cahour, B., Licoppe, C.: La confrontation aux traces de son activité. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 4(2), 243–253 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjálmsson, H., Yan, H.: Human conversation as a system framework: designing embodied conversational agents. In: Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E. (eds.) Embodied Conversational Agents, pp. 29–63. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.Consolvo, S., Everitt, K., Smith, I., Landay, J.A.: Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2006), pp. 457–466. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.Critchley, H.D.: Electrodermal responses: what happens in the brain. Neuroscientist 8, 132–142 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.Delaborde, A., Tahon, M., Barras, C., Devillers, L.: A wizard-of-Oz game for collecting emotional audio data in a children-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Affective-Aware Virtual Agents and Social Robots (Affine 2009), New York (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.Demeure, V., Niewiadomski, R., Pélachaud, C.: How is believability of a virtual agent related to warmth, competence, personification, and embodiment? Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 20(5), 431–448 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.Dubuisson–Duplessis, G., Devillers L.: Towards the consideration of dialogue activities in engagement measures for human-robot social interaction. In: IROS2015 International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Designing and Evaluating Social Robots for Public Settings Workshop, pp. 19–24, Hambourg, Germany (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.Empatica. https://support.empatica.com/
  12. 12.Fitbit. https://www.fitbit.com/
  13. 13.Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., Dautenhahn, K.: A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42(3–4), 143–166 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.Foster, M.E.: Natural face-to-face conversation with socially intelligent robots. In: Proceedings of the IROS 2015, Hamburg, Germany (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.Froehlich, J., Dillahunt, T., Klasnja, P., Mankoff, J., Consolvo, S., Harrison, B., Landay, J.A.: Investigating a mobile tool for tracking and supporting green transportation habits. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2009), pp. 1043–1052. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.Garbarino, M., Lai, M., Bender, D., Picard, R., Tognetti, S.: Empatica E3: a wearable wireless multi-sensor device for real-time computerized biofeedback and data acquisition. In: EAI 4th International Conference on Wireless Mobile Communication and Healthcare, pp. 39–42. IEEE press, Athens (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.Garfinkel, H.: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs (1967)Google Scholar
  18. 18.Goffman, E.: Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Penguin books, London (1967)Google Scholar
  19. 19.Goffman, E.: Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. The Free Press, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  20. 20.Goodwin, M.H.: Byplay: participant structure and framing of collaborative collusion. In: Framing Discourse: Public and Private in Language and Society. Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington (1985)Google Scholar
  21. 21.Goodwin, C.: Interactive footing. In: Holt, E., Clift, R. (eds.) Reporting Talk: Reported Speech and Footing in Conversation, pp. 16–46. CUP, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.Goodwin, C.: The semiotic body in its environment. In: Coupland, J., Gwyn, R. (eds.) Discourses of the Body, pp. 19–42. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.Goodwin, C.: Transparent vision. In: Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A., Thompson, S. (eds.) Interaction and Grammar, pp. 370–404. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.Heritage, J.: The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 45(1), 30–52 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.Heritage, J.: Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: empathic moments in interaction. In: Stivers, T., Mondada, L., Steensig, J. (eds.) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 159–183. CUP, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.Heritage, J., Raymond, G.: The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Soc. Psychol. Q. 68(1), 15–38 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.Hernandez, J., McDuff, D., Benavides, X., Amores, J., Maes, P., Picard, R.W.: AutoEmotive: bringing empathy to the driving experience to manage stress. In: Proceedings of the Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS 2014), Vancouver, Canada (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.Janssoone, T., Clavel, C., Bailly, K., Richard, G.: Using temporal association rules for the synthesis of embodied conversational agents with a specific stance. In: Traum, D., Swartout, W., Khooshabeh, P., Kopp, S., Scherer, S., Leuski, A. (eds.) IVA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10011, pp. 175–189. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.: Théorie des faces et analyse conversationnelle. In: Colloque de Cerisy, pp. 155–195. Les Editions de Minuit, Paris (1989)Google Scholar
  30. 30.Labov, W., Fanshel, D.: Therapeutic Discourse. New York Academic Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  31. 31.Li, I., Dey, A., Forlizzi, J.: Understanding my data, myself: supporting self-reflection with ubicomp technologies. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp 2011), pp. 405–414. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.Maynard, W.: Bad News, Good News. Conversational Order in Every-Day Talk and Clinical Settings. University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.McNeill, D.: Gesture and Thought. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.Morin, E.: La Méthode. Tome 1. La Nature de la Nature. Editions du Seuil, Paris (1977)Google Scholar
  35. 35.Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A., Thompson, S. (eds.): Interaction and Grammar. CUP, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  36. 36.Pélachaud, C., Glas, N.: Definitions of engagement in human-agent interaction. In: International Workshop on Engagement in Human Computer Interaction (ENHANCE), The Sixth International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, pp. 944–949, Xi’an, China (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.Pélachaud, C., Glas, N.: Topic transition strategies for an information-giving agent. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Workshop on natural Language Generation, pp. 146–155, Brighton (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.Pieper, J.R., Laugero, K.D.: Preschool children with lower executive function may be more vulnerable to emotional-based eating in the absence of hunger. Appetite 62(1), 103–109 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.Pierce, J., Paulos, E.: Beyond energy monitors: interaction, energy, and emerging energy systems. In: CHI 2012 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 665–674. ACM, Austin (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.Pitsch, K., Wrede, S.: When a robot orients visitors to an exhibit. Referential practices and interactional dynamics in the real world. In: IEEE ROMAN 23rd International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 36–42. IEEE press, Edinburgh (2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.Pitsch, K., Kuzuoka, H., Suzuki, Y., Süssenbach, L., Luff, P., Heath, C.: The first five seconds: contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in human-robot-interaction. In: IEEE ROMAN 18th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 985–991, Toyama, Japan (2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.Pomerantz, A.: Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action, pp. 57–101. CUP, Cambridge (1984)Google Scholar
  43. 43.Rollet, N.: Analyse conversationnelle des pratiques dans les appels au Samu-Centre 15: vers une approche praxéologique d’une forme située «d’accord». Ph.D. Sciences du Langage, Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3, Paris (2012)Google Scholar
  44. 44.Sacks, H.: On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in vonversation. In: Button, G., Lee, J.R., (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK (1987)Google Scholar
  45. 45.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G.: A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–731 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.Smith, B.K., Frost, J., Albayrak, M., Sudhakar, R.: Integrating glucometers and digital photography as experience capture tools to enhance patient understanding and communication of diabetes self-management practices. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 11(4), 273–286 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.Stivers, T., Rossano, F.: Mobilizing response. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 43(1), 3–31 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.Swan, M.: Sensor mania! the internet of things, wearable computing, objective metrics, and the quantified self 2.0. J. Sensor Actuator Netw. 1, 217–253 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.Tahon, M., Delaborde, A., Devillers, L.: Corpus of children voices for mid-level social markers and affect bursts analysis. In: LREC 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Istanbul, Turkey (2012)Google Scholar
  50. 50.T2 mood tracker. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.t2.vas&hl=en
  51. 51.Voutilainen, L., Preäkylä, A., Ruusuvuori, J.: Recognition and interpretation: responding to emotional experience in psychotherapy. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 43(1), 85–107 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar