• Dialogue systems in cars face two major challenges• Speech recognition errors • Increased cognitive load on the user

• Statistical dialogue modelling deals with speech recognition errors• Substantial research concerns safety while talking to a dialogue

system in a car• We examine how humans speak when under cognitive load• We find dis-fluencies in communication and preference towards

certain system questions

The Effect of Cognitive Load ona Statistical Dialogue System

Dialogue as a Secondary Task

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Prof. Peter Robinson and Ian Davies for their help with the simulated car experiments.

Experimental Set-up

•Bayesian Update of Dialogue State dialogue manager provides robustness to speech recognition errors:

•It models dialogue via a Bayesian network with hidden concepts •It maintains a distribution over the hidden concepts

•Domain: TopTable restaurant domain for Cambridge (150 venues, 8 slots)

•Car Simulator: seat, steering weal, pedals and large projector•30 subjects drove along a motorway in three scenarios•Driving for 10 minutes (without talking)•Talking to the system for 7 dialogues•Talking&driving at the same time (7 dialogues)

Milica Gašić, Pirros Tsiakoulis, Matthew Henderson, Blaise Thomson, Kai Yu, Eli Tzirkel* and Steve Young

Cambridge University Engineering Department, *General Motors

Results

•We measured differences in speed and related statistics per subject•We examined which is larger for Talking&Driving:

Conclusions•Dialogues with cognitively loaded users tend to be less successful

•Cognitively loaded users tend to answer some system questions more

than others

•Users tend to use barge-ins and filler significantly more often when

cognitively loaded

•Incremental dialogue and adaptation techniques are needed to better

model dialogue as a secondary task

• When talking subjects were given specific dialogue tasks to complete• We measured both the objective task completion and the perceived

(subjective) task completion

• Although not statistically significant, the performance is worse when driving at the same time.

Cognitive Load

Driving Perfomance

Dialogue Performance

Conversational Patterns

Driving Talking Talking&DrivingHow mentally demanding was the scenario? (1 low -- 5 high) 1.61 2.21 2.89How hurried was the pace of the scenario? (1 low -- 5 high) 1.21 1.71 1.89How hard did you have to work? (1 low -- 5 high) 1.5 2.32 2.96How frustrated did you feel during the task? (1 low -- 5 high) 1.29 2.61 2.61How stressed did you feel during the task? (1 low -- 5 high) 1.29 2.0 2.32

• Subjects were able to notice differences in cognitive load:

•Driving is more erratic when the subjects talk to the system at the same time

Measure % of Subjects Conf. int.Speed 8% [1%,25%]Std. dev. 77% [56%,91%]Entropy 85% [65%,95%]

Talking Talking&DrivingSubjective 78.6% 74%Objective 68.4% 64.8%

User obedience to system’s questions:

1. System requestsSamples Obedience

Talking 392 67.6%Talking&Driving 390 63.9%2. System confirms

Samples ObedienceTalking 91 73.6%Talking&Driving 92 81.5%

Analysis of measures related to speaking which increase for Talking&Driving compared to Talking:

Measure % of Subjects Conf. int.Barge-ins 87% [69%,96%]Fillers 73% [54%,88%]Intensity 67% [47%,83%]

• Users prefer confirmations to request when they are driving

• Cognitively loaded user speech is more dis-fluent and louder

tem