Multimodal support to group dynamics

Abstract

The complexity of group dynamics occurring in small group interactions often hinders the performance of teams. The availability of rich multimodal information about what is going on during the meeting makes it possible to explore the possibility of providing support to dysfunctional teams from facilitation to training sessions addressing both the individuals and the group as a whole. A necessary step in this direction is that of capturing and understanding group dynamics. In this paper, we discuss a particular scenario, in which meeting participants receive multimedia feedback on their relational behaviour, as a first step towards increasing self-awareness. We describe the background and the motivation for a coding scheme for annotating meeting recordings partially inspired by the Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis. This coding scheme was aimed at identifying suitable observable behavioural sequences. The study is complemented with an experimental investigation on the acceptability of such a service.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. 1.

    The BSVM tool available at http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/∼cjlin/bsvm/

  2. 2.

    SMIL—Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language—is the standard language for multimodal presentations developed within the W3C. http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/

References

  1. 1.

    Doyle M, Straus D (1993) How to make meetings work. The Berkley Publishing Group, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Andersen C (2000) A theoretical framework for examining peer collaboration in preservice teacher education. In: Proceedings of the 2000 annual international conference of the association for the education of teachers in science

  3. 3.

    Bloom G, Castagna C, Warren B (2006) More than mentors: principal coaching. Leadership. May/June [cited 05/05/2006]. Available at: http://www.acsa.org/

  4. 4.

    Boud D, Keogh R, Walker D (1985) Reflection: turning experience into learning. Kogan Page, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Tang JC (1991) Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. Int J Man-Mach Stud 34:143–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dourish P, Bly S (1992) Portholes: supporting awareness in a distributed work group. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computer systems CHI’92

  7. 7.

    Erickson T, Halverson C, Kellogg W.A, Laff M, Wolf T (2002) Social translucence: designing social infrastructures that make collective activity visible. Commun ACM 45(4):40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    DiMicco JM, Pandolfo A, Bender W (2004) Influencing group participation with a shared display. CSCW 2004:614–623

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J (2005) A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 12(2):201–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Waibel A, Steusloff H, Stiefelhagen R (2004) CHIL: computer in the human interaction loop. In: NIST ICASSP meeting recognition workshop, Montreal, Canada

  11. 11.

    McCowan I, Gatica-Perez D, Bengio S, Moore D, Bourlard H (2004) Towards computer understanding of human interactions. In: Aarts E, Collier R, van Loenen E, de Ruyter B (eds) Ambient intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 235–251

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kaiser E, Demirdjian D, Gruenstein A, Li X, Niekrasz J, Wesson M, Kumar S (2004) A multimodal learning interface for sketch, speak and point creation of a schedule Chart. In: Proceedings of ICMI 2004, pp 329–330

  13. 13.

    Brdiczka O, Maisonnasse J, Reignier P (2005) Automatic detection of interaction groups. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on multimodal interface, Trento, Italy

  14. 14.

    Wilson J, Rosenberg D (1988) Rapid prototyping for user interface design. In Helander M (eds) Handbook of human–computer interaction, New York, pp 859–875

  15. 15.

    Hall JW, Watson WH (1970) The effects of a normative intervention on group decision-making performance. Hum Relat 23(4):299–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Garrison B (2003) The perceived credibility of electronic mail in newspaper newsgathering. In: Proceedings of communication technology and policy division, Association for Educational in Journalism and Mass Communication Midwinter Conference, Boulder, Colorado

  17. 17.

    Benne K.D, Sheats P (1948) Functional roles of group members. J Soc Issues 4:41–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bales R.F (1970) Personality and interpersonal behaviour. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Falcon V, Leonardi C, Not E, Pianesi F, Zancanaro M (2005) Observing multimodal behaviour to support group dynamics. In: Workshop on user-centred design and evaluation of services for human–human communication and collaboration held in conjunction with ICMI’05, Trento, Italy

  20. 20.

    Cohen JA (1960) Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measure 20(1):37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    MATH  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Carli G, Gretter G (1992) A start-end point detection algorithm for a real-time acoustic front-end based on DSP32C VME board. In: Proceedings of ICSPAT, Boston, USA

  24. 24.

    Chippendale P (2006) Towards automatic body language annotation. International conference on automatic face and gesture recognition—FG2006 (IEEE) Southampton, UK, pp 487–492

  25. 25.

    Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J (2000) Support vector machines and other kernel-based learning methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hsu C-W, Lin C-JA (2002) Comparison of methods for multi-class support vector machines. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 13:415–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kressel U (1999) Pairwise classification and support vector machines. In: Scholkopf B, Burges CJC, Smola AJ (eds) Advances in Kernel methods—support vector learning. MIT Press, Cambridge

  28. 28.

    Zancanaro M, Lepri B, Pianesi F (2006) Automatic detection of group functional roles in face to face interactions. In: Proceedings of international conference of multimodal interfaces ICMI-06

  29. 29.

    McKeown KR (1985) Text generation: using discourse strategies and focus constraints to generate natural language text. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  30. 30.

    Halliday MAK, Hasan R (1985) Language, context and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Deakin University Press, Geelong

  31. 31.

    Callaway C, Not E, Stock O (2006) Report generation for post-visit summaries in museum environments. In: Stock O, Zancanaro M (eds) PEACH: intelligent interfaces for museum visits. Cognitive technologies series. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 71–92

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Bales RF (1976) Interaction process analysis: a method for the study of small groups. University of Chicago press, Chicago

  33. 33.

    Bales RF, Cohen SP (1979) SYMLOG: a system for the multiple level observation of groups. Collier Macmillan Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    DiMicco JM (2005) Changing small group interaction through visual reflections of social behaviour. PhD Thesis, MIT Media Lab

  35. 35.

    Losada M, Markovitch S (1990) GroupAnalyzer: a system for dynamic analysis of group interaction. In: Proceedings of 23rd Hawaii international conference for system sciences, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, pp 101–110

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Pianesi.

Appendix

Appendix

Here we present the questionnaire and the semantic differential scale used in the acceptability study. They both were in Italian. Table 9

Table 9 Semantic differential

Questionnaire

figurea

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pianesi, F., Zancanaro, M., Not, E. et al. Multimodal support to group dynamics. Pers Ubiquit Comput 12, 181–195 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-007-0144-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Focus Group
  • Relational Behaviour
  • Voice Activity
  • Voice Activity Detector
  • Relational Skill