Papers for

call center trainers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Speech rhythm assessment improves using amplitude envelope features

Automated Assessment of L2 Speech Rhythm Using Low-Frequency Amplitude Modulations

Abstract: Automated Speaking Assessment of non-native speech must effectively evaluate prosody, including speech rhythm, to align with human perception. However, commonly employed rhythm metrics rely on segmental duration, requiring an additional alignment step, which is error-prone in non-native speech containing disfluencies and mispronunciations. We propose an acoustics-based assessment approach that employs a convolutional neural network to extract rhythm features directly from the speech amplitude envelope, motivated by evidence linking low-frequency modulations to rhythm perception. The proposed models are trained on a proficiency score regression task using the speechocean762 dataset and compared against duration-based models. Our results show that a model using the amplitude envelope's first derivative achieves the highest correlation with human-assigned scores on the Fluency and Prosody dimensions, producing significantly lower errors than one using segment durations among less fluent speakers. The findings support acoustic envelope features as robust, alignment-free alternatives for L2 rhythm assessment. Code is released publicly.

Mon 21 SeptSound
The gist
Assessing how well people speak a new language includes checking their speech rhythm, but traditional methods need a detailed breakdown of speech sounds, which can be messy when people make mistakes. The authors propose a new way that listens to the overall loudness changes in speech instead of focusing on individual sounds. This method uses a special kind of artificial intelligence to measure speech rhythm and matches human judgments better, especially for less fluent speakers. Their approach avoids errors from aligning speech sounds and works directly from the sound wave patterns.
Open → 2609.24818v1

Nonverbal signals reveal when people say no in conversations

Negation Beyond the Verbal Channel: Temporal Multimodal Correlates in Dialogue

Abstract: Negation is typically modeled through its linguistic realization, although spoken interaction is accompanied by tightly coordinated nonverbal behavior. We ask whether contexts centered on spoken negation cues contain measurable multimodal behavioral information: whether they can be distinguished from matched control contexts without lexical or acoustic input, where this information occurs in time, which modalities carry it, and whether it extends to the dialogue partner. We study 27 human-human interviews conducted in virtual reality, comprising temporally aligned gaze, facial, head, body, hand, and finger behavior and 964 annotated negation cues. Treating classification as a predictive probe, we compare 20 time-series models while excluding lexical and acoustic information, and then systematically vary temporal context, interactional source, modality availability, and event timing. Across grouped 10-fold cross-validation, the strongest probes reach up to .75 mean held-out AUROC from speaker-side behavior. Temporal analyses show that predictive information is concentrated around cue onset but remains detectable over a broader surrounding interval, while dialogue-partner behavior carries weaker predictive information with a comparatively diffuse temporal profile. Ablation and timing perturbations further show that facial features produce the largest modality-ablation effect and that the trained probe is sensitive to the temporal organization of the observed events.

Mon 14 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
People usually understand 'no' when they hear it spoken, but there are also many nonverbal clues like facial expressions and gestures. The authors looked at conversations and found that you can detect when someone says no just by looking at these nonverbal behaviors without hearing the words. They discovered that facial movements were especially important for this, and even the other person’s behavior gave hints about negation, though less clearly. This means that detecting ‘no’ in dialogue isn’t only about the words but also about how people behave physically around that moment.
Open → 2609.16396v1