skip to main content
research-article

CoCo: Collaboration Coach for Understanding Team Dynamics during Video Conferencing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 January 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present and discuss a fully-automated collaboration system, CoCo, that allows multiple participants to video chat and receive feedback through custom video conferencing software. After a conferencing session, a virtual feedback assistant provides insights on the conversation to participants. CoCo automatically pulls audial and visual data during conversations and analyzes the extracted streams for affective features, including smiles, engagement, attention, as well as speech overlap and turn-taking. We validated CoCo with 39 participants split into 10 groups. Participants played two back-to-back team-building games, Lost at Sea and Survival on the Moon, with the system providing feedback between the two. With feedback, we found a statistically significant change in balanced participation---that is, everyone spoke for an equal amount of time. There was also statistically significant improvement in participants' self-evaluations of conversational skills awareness, including how often they let others speak, as well as of teammates' conversational skills. The entire framework is available at https://github.com/ROC-HCI/CollaborationCoach_PostFeedback.

References

  1. 1996. Lost at Sea. (1996). http://insight.typepad.co.uk/lost_at_sea.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2011. Siri. (2011). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SiriGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2015. Video Conferencing Trends 2016. http://resources.idgenterprise.com/original/AST-0162982_Video_Conferencing_Trends_of_2016.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2016. Affectiva. http://www.affectiva.com/. (2016). Accessed: 2016-10-30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandon Amos, Bartosz Ludwiczuk, and Mahadev Satyanarayanan. 2016. OpenFace: A general-purpose face recognition library with mobile applications. Technical Report. Technical report, CMU-CS-16-118, CMU School of Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Patricia B. Barger and Alicia A. Grandey. 2006. Service with a Smile and Encounter Satisfaction: Emotional Contagion and Appraisal Mechanisms. The Academy of Management Journal 49, 6 (2006), 1229--1238. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159829 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Sigal G. Barsade. 2002. The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on Group Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 4 (2002), 644--675. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3094912 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. JÃľrÃľmy Bauchet, HÃľlÃÍne Pigot, Sylvain Giroux, Dany Lussier-Desrochers, Yves Lachapelle, and Mounir Mokhtari. [n. d.]. Designing judicious interactions for cognitive assistance: the acts of assistance approach. In Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM, 11--18. https://doi.org/10.1145/1639642.1639647 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Paul Boersma and David Weenink. 2016. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. http://www.praat.org/. (2016). Accessed: 2016-06-01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. LouAnne E. Boyd, Alejandro Rangel, Helen Tomimbang, Andrea Conejo-Toledo, Kanika Patel, Monica Tentori, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2016. SayWAT: Augmenting Face-to-Face Conversations for Adults with Autism. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4872--4883. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858215 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Erin Bradner, Gloria Mark, and Tammie D. Hertel. 2005. Team size and technology fit: Participation, awareness, and rapport in distributed teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 48, 1 (2005), 68--77. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2005.843299 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. T. Prevett. C. Wickens. 1995. Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays: influences on local guidance and global situation awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dan Calacci, Oren Lederman, David Shrier, and Alex Sandy Pentland. 2016. Breakout: An Open Measurement and Intervention Tool for Distributed Peer Learning Groups. CoRR abs/1607.01443 (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01443Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jean Carletta, Simone Ashby, Sebastien Bourban, Mike Flynn, Mael Guillemot, Thomas Hain, Jaroslav Kadlec, Vasilis Karaiskos, Wessel Kraaij, Melissa Kronenthal, Guillaume Lathoud, Mike Lincoln, Agnes Lisowska, Iain McCowan, Wilfried Post, Dennis Reidsma, and Pierre Wellner. 2006. The AMI Meeting Corpus: A Pre-announcement. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction (MLMI‘05). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 28--39. https://doi.org/10.1007/11677482_3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Samuele Centorrino, Elodie Djemai, Astrid Hopfensitz, Manfred Milinski, and Paul Seabright. 2015. Honest signaling in trust interactions: smiles rated as genuine induce trust and signal higher earning opportunities. Evolution and Human Behavior 36, 1 (2015), 8--16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.08.001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. K. M. Cohen. 1982. Speaker interaction: Video teleconference versus face-to-face meetings (Teleconferencing and Electronic Communications). ACM, University of Wisconsin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. RALPH D'AGOSTINO and Egon S Pearson. 1973. Tests for departure from normality. Empirical results for the distributions of b 2 andâĹŽ b. Biometrika 60, 3 (1973), 613--622.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ralph B d'Agostino. 1971. An omnibus test of normality for moderate and large size samples. Biometrika 58, 2 (1971), 341--348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Ionut Damian, Chiew Seng (Sean) Tan, Tobias Baur, Johannes SchÃűning, Kris Luyten, and Elisabeth AndrÃľ. [n. d.]. Augmenting Social Interactions: Realtime Behavioural Feedback using Social Signal Processing Techniques. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 565--574. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702314 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Richard W. DeVaul, Alex “Sandy” Pentland, and Vicka R. Corey. 2003. The Memory Glasses: Subliminal vs. Overt Memory Support with Imperfect Information. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC ‘03). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 146--. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=946249.946907Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. J. Diehl and R. Paul. 2009. The assessment and treatment of prosodic disorders and neurological theories of prosody. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 11, 4 (2009), 287--92. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549500902971887 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Joan Morris DiMicco, Anna Pandolfo, and Walter Bender. 2004. Influencing group participation with a shared display. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ‘04 (2004), 614--623. https://doi.org/10.1145/1031607.1031713 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Norah E. Dunbar and Judee K. Burgoon. 2005. Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22, 2 (2005), 207--233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505050944 arXiv:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407505050944 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Jay Hall and Wilfred Harvey Watson. 1970. Survival on the moon. Human relations (1970). https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/nasa-exerciseGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Laura A. Hambley, Thomas A. O'Neill, and Theresa J B Kline. 2007. Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103, 1 (2007), 1--20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.004 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Crystal L. Hoyt and Jim Blascovich. 2003. Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Virtual and Physical Environments. Small Group Research 34, 6 (2003), 678--715. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403257527 arXiv:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496403257527 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. H. Hung, Yan Huang, G. Friedland, and D. Gatica-Perez. 2011. Estimating Dominance in Multi-Party Meetings Using Speaker Diarization. Trans. Audio, Speech and Lang. Proc. 19, 4 (May 2011), 847--860. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2010.2066267 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Inseok HWANG, Chungkuk YOO, Chanyou HWANG, Dongsun YIM, Youngki LEE, Singapore Management University, Chulhong MIN, Hjohn KIM, and Junehwa SONG. 2014. TalkBetter: Family-driven Mobile Intervention Care for Children with Language Delay. (2014), 1283. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531668 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Jeroen Janssen, Gijsbert Erkens, and Gellof Kanselaar. 2007. Visualization of Agreement and Discussion Processes During Computer-supported Collaborative Learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 3 (May 2007), 1105--1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.005 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jeroen Janssen, Gijsbert Erkens, Gellof Kanselaar, and Jos Jaspers. 2007. Visualization of Participation: Does It Contribute to Successful Computer-supported Collaborative Learning? Comput. Educ. 49, 4 (Dec. 2007), 1037--1065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Dinesh Babu Jayagopi, Hayley Hung, Chuohao Yeo, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2009. Modeling Dominance in Group Conversations Using Nonverbal Activity Cues. Trans. Audio, Speech and Lang. Proc. 17, 3 (March 2009), 501--513. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2008.2008238 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Vaiva Kalnikaité, Patrick Ehlen, and Steve Whittaker. 2012. Markup As You Talk: Establishing Effective Memory Cues While Still Contributing to a Meeting. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 349--358. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145260Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Taemie Kim, Pamela Hinds, and Alex Pentland. 2012. Awareness As an Antidote to Distance: Making Distributed Groups Cooperative and Consistent. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1237--1246. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145391Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. G. Ross. Lawford. 2003. Beyond success: Achieving synergy in teamwork. The Journal for Quality and Participation 26, 3 (Fall 2003), 23--27. https://search.proquest.com/docview/219147502?accountid=13567Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Yale Child Jane L. Mcsweeny Ami Klin Donald J. Cohen Fred R. Volkmar Lawrence D. Shriberg, Rhea Paul. [n. d.]. Speech and prosody characteristics of adolescents and adults with high functioning autism and Asperger syndrome. In Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.385.7116Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Harold J. Leavitt. 1951. Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of abnormal psychology (1951), 38--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Gilly Leshed. 2009. Automated language-based feedback for teamwork behaviors. Ph.D. Dissertation. https://search.proquest.com/docview/304872230?accountid=13567 Copyright - Database copyright ProQuest LLC; ProQuest does not claim copyright in the individual underlying works; Last updated - 2016-06-03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Gilly Leshed, Diego Perez, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Dan Cosley, Jeremy Birnholtz, Soyoung Lee, Poppy L. McLeod, and Geri Gay. 2009. Visualizing Real-time Language-based Feedback on Teamwork Behavior in Computer-mediated Groups. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2009), 537--546. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518784 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Bill Mark and R Perrault. 2005. Calo: Cognitive assistant that learns and organizes. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Poppy Lauretta McLeod, Jeffrey K. Liker, and Sharon A. Lobel. 1992. Process Feedback in Task Groups: An Application of Goal Setting. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 28, 1 (1992), 15--41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886392281003 arXiv:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886392281003 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Janice Nadler. 2003. Rapport in negotiation and conflict resolution. Marq. L. Rev. 285, 1990 (2003), 875--882. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Eyal Ofek, Shamsi T. Iqbal, and Karin Strauss. 2013. Reducing Disruption from Subtle Information Delivery During a Conversation: Mode and Bandwidth Investigation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3111--3120. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466425 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Jeffery R. Ringer. 1985. Pardon Me, Can I Talk Now?: A Look at the Roles of Interruptions in Conversation. Annual Meeting of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gneder (1985), 1--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Marcello Russo. 2012. Diversity in goal orientation, team performance, and internal team environment. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 31, 2 (2012), 124--143. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151211202781 arXiv:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610151211202781Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Harvey Sacks, Emanuel a Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. (1974), 696--735 pages. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. M. Satyanarayanan. 2004. From the Editor in Chief: Augmenting Cognition. IEEE Pervasive Computing 3, 2 (2004), 4--5. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2004.1316809 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Charles R. Scherl and Jay Haley. 2000. Computer Monitor Supervision: A Clinical Note. The American Journal of Family Therapy 28, 3 (2000), 275--282. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180050081702 arXiv:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926180050081702 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Mark Schittekatte and Alain Van Hiel. 1996. Effects of Partially Shared Information and Awareness of Unshared Information on Information Sampling. Small Group Research 27, 3 (1996), 431--449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496273006 arXiv:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496496273006 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Abigail J. Sellen. 1992. Speech Patterns in Video-mediated Conversations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘92). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 49--59. https://doi.org/10.1145/142750.142756 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. D. Tanen. 1995. The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why. Harvard Business Review (1995).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Deborah Tannen. 1997. Gender and Discourse. Discourse (1997), 548--567. https://doi.org/10.2307/2655317Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. M. Iftekhar Tanveer, Emy Lin, and Mohammed (Ehsan) Hoque. 2015. Rhema: A Real-Time In-Situ Intelligent Interface to Help People with Public Speaking. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ‘15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 286--295. https://doi.org/10.1145/2678025.2701386 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Yla R. Tausczik and James W. Pennebaker. 2013. Improving teamwork using real-time language feedback. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ‘13 (2013), 459--468. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470720 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Monica Tentori and Gillian R. Hayes. [n. d.]. Designing for interaction immediacy to enhance social skills of children with autism. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM international conference on Ubiquitous computing. ACM, 51--60. https://doi.org/10.1145/1864349.1864359 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Linda Tickle-Degnen and Robert Rosenthal. 1990. The Nature of Rapport and Its Nonverbal Correlates. Psychological Inquiry 1, 4 (1990), 285--293. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449345 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Janet van der Linden, Rose Johnson, Jon Bird, Yvonne Rogers, and Erwin Schoonderwaldt. 2011. Buzzing to Play: Lessons Learned from an in the Wild Study of Real-time Vibrotactile Feedback. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 533--542. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979017 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Joseph B. Walther and Lisa C. Tidwell. 1995. Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication. J. Org. Computing 5, 4 (1995), 355--378. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/jocec/jocec5.html Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. C. Wickens. 1996. Situation awareness: impact of automation and display technology. In NATO AGARD Aerospace Medical Panel Symposium on Situation Awareness.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science 330, 6004 (2010), 686--688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147 arXiv:http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6004/686.full.pdf Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Qianli Xu, Michal Mukawa, Liyuan Li, Joo Hwee Lim, Cheston Tan, Shue Ching Chia, Tian Gan, and Bappaditya Mandal. [n. d.]. Exploring users' attitudes towards social interaction assistance on Google Glass. In Proceedings of the 6th Augmented Human International Conference. ACM, 9--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2735711.2735831 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. CoCo: Collaboration Coach for Understanding Team Dynamics during Video Conferencing

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
      Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 1, Issue 4
      December 2017
      1298 pages
      EISSN:2474-9567
      DOI:10.1145/3178157
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 January 2018
      • Accepted: 1 October 2017
      • Revised: 1 August 2017
      • Received: 1 May 2017
      Published in imwut Volume 1, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader