↓ Skip to main content

You cannot speak and listen at the same time: a probabilistic model of turn-taking

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Cybernetics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
You cannot speak and listen at the same time: a probabilistic model of turn-taking
Published in
Biological Cybernetics, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00422-017-0714-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Donnarumma, Haris Dindo, Pierpaolo Iodice, Giovanni Pezzulo

Abstract

Turn-taking is a preverbal skill whose mastering constitutes an important precondition for many social interactions and joint actions. However, the cognitive mechanisms supporting turn-taking abilities are still poorly understood. Here, we propose a computational analysis of turn-taking in terms of two general mechanisms supporting joint actions: action prediction (e.g., recognizing the interlocutor's message and predicting the end of turn) and signaling (e.g., modifying one's own speech to make it more predictable and discriminable). We test the hypothesis that in a simulated conversational scenario dyads using these two mechanisms can recognize the utterances of their co-actors faster, which in turn permits them to give and take turns more efficiently. Furthermore, we discuss how turn-taking dynamics depend on the fact that agents cannot simultaneously use their internal models for both action (or messages) prediction and production, as these have different requirements-or, in other words, they cannot speak and listen at the same time with the same level of accuracy. Our results provide a computational-level characterization of turn-taking in terms of cognitive mechanisms of action prediction and signaling that are shared across various interaction and joint action domains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 32%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 32%
Engineering 4 13%
Computer Science 4 13%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 5 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,192,260
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Biological Cybernetics
#461
of 677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,877
of 311,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Cybernetics
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 677 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them