Speech Matters – Psychological Aspects of Artificial versus Anthropomorphic System Voices in User-Companion Interaction

  • Swantje FerchowEmail author
  • Matthias Haase
  • Julia Krüger
  • Matthias Vogel
  • Mathias Wahl
  • Jörg Frommer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9748)


The design of this forthcoming study was created to investigate the influences of different system-voices on users while they interact with a simulated Companion-system. By using a Wizard of Oz experiment, we want to find out what kind of voice output (artificial vs. anthropomorphic) is better suited for keeping up users’ cooperation with a system while solving a task. The goal of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of influences of the speech-output in User-Companion Interaction. Users’ perceived trustworthiness towards the system, their experienced affective states and individual user characteristics as important mediators are the main focus of the present study.


Companion-system Wizard of Oz experiment System voice Anthropomorphism User characteristics 



The presented study is performed in the framework of the Transregional Collaborative Research Centre SFB/TRR 62 “A Companion-Technology for Cognitive Technical Systems” funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The responsibility for the content of this paper lies with the authors. We are grateful for cooperation in this study regarding technical implementation, modification and computer science aspects to the research group of Dietmar Rösner, including Rico Andrich and Rafael Friesen. Furthermore, we want to thank Ralph Heinemann and Michael Tornow for the additional assistance regarding technical implementation of the experimental setting.


  1. 1.
    Wendemuth, A., Biundo, S.: A companion technology for cognitive technical systems. In: Esposito, A., Esposito, A.M., Vinciarelli, A., Hoffmann, R., Müller, V.C. (eds.) COST 2102. LNCS, vol. 7403, pp. 89–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karitnig, A.: Analyse von künstlichen und natürlichen Sprachausgabesystemen im Smart-Home-Bereich. In: Hitz, M. Leitner, G., Kruschitz, C. (eds.) HASE 2010 – HCI Aspects of Smart Environments, pp. 29–38. Klagenfurt (2010).
  3. 3.
    Suzuki, N., Katagiri, Y.: Prosodic alignment in human-computer-interaction. Connect. Sci. 19(2), 131–141 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waytz, A., Heafner, J., Epley, N.: The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 52, 113–117 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rösner, D., Frommer, J., Friesen, R., Haase, M., Lange, J., Otto, M.: LAST MINUTE: a multimodal corpus of speech-based user-companion interactions. In: Calzolari, N. (Chair), Choukri, K., Declerck, T., Doğan, M.U., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Moreno, A., Odijk, J., Piperidis, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012), p. 96. European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Istanbul, Turkey (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Picard, R.W.: Affective Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolff, S., Kohrs, C., Scheich, H., Brechmann, A.: Temporal contingency and prosodic modulation of feedback in human-computer interaction: effects on brain activation and performance in cognitive tasks. In: Heiß, H.-U., Pepper, P., Schlingloff, H., Schneider, J. (eds.) Informatik 2011, Berlin, GI-Edition. LNI, vol. 192, p. 238. Koellen, Bonn (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hudlicka, E.: To feel or not to feel: the role of affect in human-computer interaction. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 59, 1–32 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machine and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56(1), 81–103 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolff, S., Brechmann, A.: Carrot and stick 2.0: the benefits of natural and motivational prosody in computer-assisted learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 76–84 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Partala, T., Surakka, V.: The effects of affective interventions in human-computer interaction. Interact. Comput. 16, 295–309 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nass, C., Lee, K.M.: Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. J. Exp. Psychol. 7(3), 171–181 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frommer, J., Rösner, D., Haase, M., Lange, J., Friesen, R., Otto, M.: Project A3 prevention of negative courses of dialogues: wizard of Oz experiment operator’s manual. Working Paper of the Collaborative Research Project/Transregio 62 “A Companion Technology for Cognitive Technical Systems”. Pabst Science Publication, Lengerich (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haase, M., Lange, J., Frommer, J.: Eigenschaften von Nutzern in der Mensch-Computer-Interaktion. In: Peters, S. (ed.) Die Technisierung des Menschlichen und die Humanisierung der Maschine: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Interdependenz von Mensch und Technik. Mitteldeutscher Verlag, Halle (Saale) (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rösner, D., Haase, M., Bauer, T., Günther, S., Krüger, J., Frommer, J.: Desiderata for the design of companion systems. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz 30(1), 53–61 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krüger, J., Wahl, M., Frommer, J.: making the system a relational partner: users’ ascriptions in individualization-focused interactions with companion-systems. In: Berntzen, L., Böhm, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Advances in Human Oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services (CENTRIC 2015), pp. 47–53. IARIA (2015).
  17. 17.
    Frommer, J., Rösner, D., Andrich, R., Friesen, R., Günther, S., Haase, M., Krüger, J.: LAST MINUTE: an empirical experiment in user companion interaction and its evaluation. In: Companion-Technology: A Paradigm Shift in Human-Technology Interaction. Springer, Heidelberg (in press)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lexow, A., Andrich, R., Rösner, D.: LAST MINUTE: User perception of the computer voice. In: Biundo-Stephan, S., Rukzio, E., Wendemuth, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Companion-Technology (ISCT 2015), Ulm, pp. 137–142 (2015).
  19. 19.
    Wahl, M., Krüger, J., Frommer, J.: From anger to relief: five ideal types of users experiencing an affective intervention in HCI. In: Berntzen, L., Böhm, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Advances in Human Oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services (CENTRIC 2015), pp. 55–61. IARIA (2015).
  20. 20.
    Lang, J.W.B., Fries, S.: A revised 10-item version of the achievement motives scale: psychometric properties in German-speaking samples. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 22(3), 216–224 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krohne, H.W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., Tausch, A.: Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Version der “Positive and Negative Affect Schedule” (PANAS). Diagnostica 42, 139–156 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., Koller, F.: AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In: Szwillus, G., Ziegler, J. (Hgg.) Mensch & Computer 2003 (Berichte des German Chapter of the ACM), Bd. 57, S. 187–196. Vieweg + Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press/CSLI, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Madsen, M., Gregor, S.: Measuring human-computer trust. In: Gable, G., Vitale, M. (eds.) 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, vol. 53, pp. 6–8 (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krüger, J., Wahl, M., Frommer, J.: Users’ relational ascriptions in user-companion interaction. In: 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 17–22 July, Toronto, Canada. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (accepted)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Swantje Ferchow
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthias Haase
    • 1
  • Julia Krüger
    • 1
  • Matthias Vogel
    • 1
  • Mathias Wahl
    • 1
  • Jörg Frommer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical FacultyOtto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations