Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Effect of Avatar Head Movement on Communication Behaviour, Experience of Presence and Conversation Success in Triadic Conversations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read When avatars' heads move, VR conversation behaviour changes

desk verdict Useful, well-documented empirical study of avatar head movement in triadic VR conversation, but the headline claim that head movement must be transmitted overreaches the data because the strongest effects come from a video condition that bundles head movement with facial expression, lip-sync, gaze, and skin texture. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20844 v1 pith:CB3JZM6G submitted 2025-04-29 cs.HC cs.SD

Angelika Kothe , Volker Hohmann , Giso Grimm This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.SD
keywords avatarheadmovementtriadicconversationvirtualrealitycommunicationbehaviourpresencesuccesshearingdeviceevaluationtelepresence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether animated head movements on virtual conversation partners change how a real person behaves and feels in a three-way VR conversation. Sixteen normal-hearing participants held free conversations with two confederates, represented by avatars whose heads were static, automated (speech-cued), driven by transmitted head-capture data, or replaced by a live video. The authors find that animation level significantly changed speech level, utterance duration, how far participants swung their heads while speaking, perceived avatar realism, and how helpfully participants felt they were spoken to. The conclusion is that virtual interlocutors must include enough head movement to elicit natural communicative behaviour.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the animation-level manipulation in a 2 x 4 repeated-measures design: two noise levels (quiet and babble at roughly 69 dB SPL) crossed with four interlocutor representations (static head; automated head and gaze cued by speech-level onsets; head motion transmitted from inertial sensors worn by the confederates; and a live head-and-shoulders video texture). The telepresence setup transmitted speech, head-motion data, and video with low delay to keep the conversation interactive while allowing the authors to change only the visual representation. Behavioural measures came from room microphones and optical head tracking; experience came from ten rating questions covering presence, realism, and conversation success. This design is what allows the authors to attribute changes in participant behaviour to the visual animation level rather than to the audio scene.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison with the same video textures but the head motion frozen—or with animated heads but no facial expression—would separate head movement from facial cues; if static-video and moving-video conditions produce the same behaviour and ratings, the head-movement claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that head movement in virtual interlocutors is not decoration: it changes the listener's own behaviour. More animated heads made participants use a wider range of head orientations while speaking, orient their heads more accurately toward the avatar (2.1 degrees closer in video than in static), produce longer utterances (video vs. automated by 0.79 seconds), and rate the avatars as more realistic (static vs. video, +1.9 points). Participants also reported being spoken to in a more helpful way when head movement was transmitted compared with static avatars. Automated speech-cued head movements were statistically indistinguishable from transmitted movements on most measures. Background noise independently caused a 10.6 dB Lombard shift (raising the voice in noise), longer speech gaps, shorter overlaps, wider head-orientation range, and a 3 cm forward lean. The paper concludes that representing interlocutors with sufficient head movement—nodding or orienting toward the active speaker—is necessary for natural conversational behaviour in interactive VR.

Load-bearing premise

The 'video' condition, which produced the strongest effects, displayed a live head-and-shoulders video with real facial expressions, lip movement, gaze, and skin texture, so the conclusion that head movement specifically must be included assumes those extra cues are not what drove the effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VR scenes built to evaluate hearing devices should animate interlocutor heads—at minimum speech-cued orientation or nodding—if the goal is to observe natural head-orientation behaviour from listeners.
  • Because automated and transmitted head movements rarely differed significantly, speech-onset-driven animation may be a practical substitute for motion capture in such scenes.
  • Static avatars flatten the head-orientation range a listener uses while speaking, so tests of gaze-steered or head-tracking hearing-aid algorithms in static scenes may not reflect real conversation.
  • Background noise produces large, independent effects on speech level, turn-taking timing, and head movement, so noise level remains a primary lever for controlling task difficulty in evaluative VR conversations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The video condition bundles head movement together with facial expression, lip-sync, gaze, and skin texture; the paper's strongest evidence for 'head movement specifically' therefore remains circumstantial until a control condition freezes the head in the video or animates a video face without motion.
  • If the head-movement effect generalizes, static-avatar paradigms may systematically underestimate how much listeners move their heads and thus how much benefit directional microphones could provide in real conversations; a direct aided-versus-unaided comparison under static versus animated avatars would test this.
  • The large individual differences in head-yaw range and the use of young normal-hearing participants leave open whether older or hearing-impaired listeners, who may rely more on visual cues, would show larger animation effects; the authors acknowledge this limits generalization.
  • The finding that transmitted head movement made participants feel spoken to in a more helpful way, while automated movements behaved similarly, suggests that practical VR conversation systems can use simple speech-level automation rather than full motion capture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment on how the head-movement animation level of virtual interlocutor avatars affects communication behaviour, sense of presence, and conversation success in triadic conversations conducted in a telepresence VR setup. Sixteen normal-hearing participants conversed with two confederates under a 2x4 factorial design crossing quiet/noise with four visual conditions: static head, automatic speech-cued head movements, transmitted real head movements, and a video texture condition. Outcome measures were objective speech/silence durations, head orientation and translation from motion capture, and a ten-item rating questionnaire. The authors report significant main effects of animation on several behavioural and subjective measures, with the largest consistent differences occurring between the static and video conditions, and they conclude that representations of interlocutors must include a sufficient amount of head movement to elicit natural conversational behaviour.

Significance. If the causal claim about head movement were supported, the result would be directly useful for the design of interactive VR scenes for hearing-device evaluation, an area that increasingly relies on ecologically valid behavioural protocols. The paper has concrete strengths: it uses objective sensor-based behavioural measures, a realistic live telepresence conversation task, and it provides open data and analysis scripts (Zenodo links in the Data availability statement). It also supplies useful evidence that the visual representation of interlocutors changes participants' behaviour and experience in virtual conversations. However, the central conclusion is stronger than the experimental design can support because the video condition, which drives most of the significant effects, is confounded with facial expression, lip-sync, gaze, and skin texture, and because the confederate who is also the experimenter was not blind to condition. The manuscript therefore merits revision but has a solid empirical core.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, 'Virtual environment' paragraph; General discussion; Conclusions] The conclusion that 'the representation of interlocutors must include a sufficient amount of head movement' is not supported by the design, because the strongest and most consistent effects come from the 'video' condition, which adds facial expression, lip-sync, gaze cues, and realistic skin appearance on top of any head movement (Methods, 'Virtual environment' paragraph). The pairwise results in Table 3 show that 'static' vs 'transmitted' is significant only for Q6 ('being spoken to in a helpful way'), with Q5 (realism of avatars) at p = 0.064, and the General discussion states that 'automatic' and 'transmitted' never differ significantly. The data support the weaker claim that a more realistic visual representation of interlocutors affects participants' behaviour and experience; they do not isolate head movement as the active ingredient. The conclusions and General discussion should be reworded to this weaker claim, and the Limitations section should explicitly state that the video condition confound prevents attribution of the video-vs-static differences to head movement alone.
  2. [Methods, 'Design and task'] The confederate 'Mar', who is also the experimenter controlling the session, was not blind to condition ('One confederate (Mar) controlled the ongoing experiment and was therefore not blind to the measurement conditions'). Because Mar is an active interlocutor in every triad, controls the timing of condition switches, and knows which visual condition is active, his conversational behaviour could systematically differ across conditions and thereby influence the participant's speech timing, head orientation, and subjective ratings such as Q6. This is a threat to the internal validity of the animation effects on interactive measures, and it is not acknowledged or discussed in the Limitations section. The authors should either provide an argument that this bias could not account for the observed pattern or explicitly discuss its direction and plausible magnitude.
  3. [Results, Table 3; General discussion] The summary statement in the General discussion that the expected animation effect was 'reflected in about two thirds of our selected measures' is not consistent with Table 3. Of the eighteen dependent variables listed, only eight show a significant main effect of animation, and for two of those (speech level and Q8) no pairwise comparison survives Bonferroni correction. The narrative should not count the uncorrected main effects and the Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise differences as equivalent evidence; a more precise accounting of which measures are supported by pairwise differences would improve the accuracy of the interpretations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction, second paragraph] The text contains 'did not find an affect of noise level'; 'affect' should be 'effect'.
  2. [General discussion, first paragraph] The phrase 'but indicted to be equally able to share information' should be 'but indicated to be equally able to share information'.
  3. [Discussion, 'Measures of head movement behaviour' section] The sentence 'rbal information is used in the background noise if it is offered' appears to be a typographical fragment; it should be completed or removed.
  4. [Appendix, Table 4 caption] 'Questionniare' should be spelled 'Questionnaire'.
  5. [Results, Table 3] The head orientation range (listening) row lists p = 0.9; given the F value and the text this is likely a typo for p = 0.09, which should be corrected.
  6. [Methods, 'Statistical analysis'] The Bonferroni correction is described only for pairwise comparisons; the manuscript does not state whether correction was applied across the many dependent variables or only within each measure. A sentence clarifying this would help readers assess the risk of inflated Type I error across the multiple ANOVAs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the animation-level manipulation and all outcome measures are defined independently; self-citations are implementation citations, not definitional inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional: it manipulates four visual-representation conditions and measures speech and head-movement behaviour with physical sensors, plus subjective ratings with a 10-item questionnaire. The conclusion that interlocutor representations must include sufficient head movement is an interpretation of between-condition differences, not a quantity derived from its own inputs. No equation defines a predicted value in terms of fitted parameters, and no parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then 'predicted' for a related subset. The automatic head-movement algorithm is cited from prior work, and TASCAR, OVBOX, and the pub environment are cited from the authors' previous publications, but these are implementation tools; the outcome measures are defined independently of those tools and were not used to construct the conditions. The closest concern, that the 'video' condition adds facial expression, lip-sync, gaze, and skin texture on top of head movement, is an internal-validity/confound limitation rather than circularity: it may mean the causal claim overreaches the evidence, but the conclusion is not identical to an input by construction. There is no self-citation chain that forces the central claim, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result as a prediction. Accordingly, the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on several unverified assumptions: the non-blind experimenter did not bias the interaction, the video condition isolates head movement from other visual cues, the chosen measures reflect natural communication, and the delays did not alter conversation. These are reasonable but untested, and they weaken the conclusiveness of the paper.

free parameters (1)
  • speech activity detection threshold = 25% point of estimated dynamic range above noise floor, per person and condition
    Speech measures such as utterance duration, gaps, and overlaps depend on this threshold. The paper itself acknowledges that the magnitudes of the selected speech measures were highly dependent on the level threshold.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The experimenter confederate (Mar), who was not blind to condition, behaved consistently across conditions.
    If the experimenter's speech or manner changed with condition, differences could arise from confederate bias rather than avatar animation. The paper notes Mar controlled the experiment but does not discuss this potential bias.
  • domain assumption The 'video' condition's effects can be attributed to head movement rather than to facial expression, lip-sync, or skin texture.
    The video condition displays a real-time video texture of the interlocutor's head and shoulders, which includes many visual cues beyond head motion. The conclusion specifically about head movement requires this assumption.
  • domain assumption The selected outcome measures (head orientation range, utterance duration, questionnaire ratings) are valid proxies for natural communication behaviour relevant to hearing device evaluation.
    The paper interprets changes in these measures as evidence about naturalness of communication, but no independent validation of these proxies is provided.
  • domain assumption Transmission delays (audio 49.8 ms, head motion about 180 ms, video about 500 ms) did not materially alter conversation dynamics.
    The authors note that a detrimental effect of the increased transmission delay cannot be excluded, especially for the video condition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of Avatar Head Movement on Communication Behaviour, Experience of Presence and Conversation Success in Triadic Conversations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CB3JZM6G

@misc{pith2026250420844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of Avatar Head Movement on Communication Behaviour, Experience of Presence and Conversation Success in Triadic Conversations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CB3JZM6G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20844}
}
read the original abstract

Interactive communication in virtual reality can be used in experimental paradigms to increase the ecological validity of hearing device evaluations. This requires the virtual environment to elicit natural communication behaviour in listeners. This study evaluates the effect of virtual animated characters' head movements on participants' communication behaviour and experience. Triadic conversations were conducted between a test participant and two confederates. To facilitate the manipulation of head movements, the conversation was conducted in telepresence using a system that transmitted audio, head movement data and video with low delay. The confederates were represented by virtual animated characters (avatars) with different levels of animation: Static heads, automated head movement animations based on speech level onsets, and animated head movements based on the transmitted head movements of the interlocutors. A condition was also included in which the videos of the interlocutors' heads were embedded in the visual scene. The results show significant effects of animation level on the participants' speech and head movement behaviour as recorded by physical sensors, as well as on the subjective sense of presence and the success of the conversation. The largest effects were found for the range of head orientation during speech and the perceived realism of avatars. Participants reported that they were spoken to in a more helpful way when the avatars showed head movements transmitted from the interlocutors than when the avatars' heads were static. We therefore conclude that the representation of interlocutors must include sufficiently realistic head movements in order to elicit natural communication behaviour.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20844 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: top view of the virtual conversation setup. The test participant is virtually sitting on the empty chair. Centre panel: view of the virtual environment from the participant’s perspective. Bottom panel: view of the virtual environment with real-time video textures in front of the avatars’ faces, which was used in the condition ’video’. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scheme of possible combinations of speech segments in a triadic conversation. Each row represents one speaker, the dark grey bars are speech activity over time. Gaps and overlaps are marked by light blue bars. Only the times of speech gaps and overlaps were defined as turn takes. only the respective interlocutor was active, in order to avoid ambiguous data. It was assumed that the interlocutors were listening during… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Median utterance duration during conversation of participants Subj and confed￾erates Mar and Joa. Note that only participants, not the two confederates, were exposed to different visual conditions. Four outliers are outside the displayed x value range. Mar: in trans (n) 6.46 s, in stat (n) 7.83 s, Subj: in trans (n) 6.36 s, in stat (n) 7.33 s. Head movement behaviour The angular distance to the speaker was defined a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Median duration of speech overlaps (left) and gaps (right) at turn takes between the three interlocutors. The speech overlap duration is noted in negative values. Note that the frequency of overlaps decreased in noise, whereas the frequency of gaps increased (Not shown…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative occurrence over head yaw angle for each participant during listening (dark grey) and speaking (light grey), pooled over all conditions. The vertical lines indicate the position of the avatar Mar (M), the avatar Joa (J), and the centre between both. The avatars…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Participant’s angular distance to the avatars’ faces in each condition, referenced to the individual median over all conditions. Lower values represent a more accurate orientation. One outlier is outside the displayed x value range (in video (q): -11.48 °). The used ra…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Head orientation range during ‘listening’ (left) and ‘speaking’ (right), referenced to the individual median over all conditions. A higher value represents a wider angle range. Two data sets had a ’speaking’ period below 15 s in at least one condition and had to be exc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Rating values of questionnaire items regarding presence, involvement and realism of the virtual scene. The English labels are parts of the translated original questions in German (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Rating values of questionnaire items regarding conversation success. The English labels are parts of the translation of the original questions in German (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 164: 102819

    Aburumman N, Gillies M, Ward JA and Hamilton AFC (2022) Nonverbal communication in virtual reality: Nodding as a social signal in virtual interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 164: 102819. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102819. ://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1071581922000489

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Speech Communication 100: 18--29

    Beechey T, Buchholz JM and Keidser G (2018) Measuring communication difficulty through effortful speech production during conversation. Speech Communication 100: 18--29. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2018.04.007. ://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167639317302364

    work page doi:10.1016/j.specom.2018.04.007 2018

  3. [3]

    Trends in Hearing 21: 1--11

    Best V, Roverud E, Streeter T, Mason CR and Kidd G (2017) The benefit of a visually guided beamformer in a dynamic speech task. Trends in Hearing 21: 1--11. doi:10.1177/2331216517722304

    work page doi:10.1177/2331216517722304 2017

  4. [4]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364(1535): 3485--3495

    Boker SM, Cohn JF, Theobald BJ, Matthews I, Brick TR and Spies JR (2009) Effects of damping head movement and facial expression in dyadic conversation using real–time facial expression tracking and synthesized avatars. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364(1535): 3485--3495. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0152

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Ear & Hearing 35(5): e204--e212

    Brimijoin WO, Whitmer WM, McShefferty D and Akeroyd MA (2014) The Effect of Hearing Aid Microphone Mode on Performance in an Auditory Orienting Task . Ear & Hearing 35(5): e204--e212. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000053. ://journals.lww.com/00003446-201409000-00016

    work page arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Behaviour 148(11-13): 1173--1198

    Brumm H and Zollinger SA (2011) The evolution of the Lombard effect: 100 years of psychoacoustic research. Behaviour 148(11-13): 1173--1198. doi:10.1163/000579511X605759. ://brill.com/view/journals/beh/148/11-13/article-p1173_1.xml

    work page doi:10.1163/000579511x605759 2011

  7. [7]

    Seminars in Hearing 43(04): 277--288

    Carr K and Kihm J (2022) MarkeTrak — Tracking the Pulse of the Hearing Aid Market . Seminars in Hearing 43(04): 277--288. doi:10.1055/s-0042-1758380

    work page doi:10.1055/s-0042-1758380 2022

  8. [8]

    ://opsound.org/artist/dokapi

    Dokapi (2015) Lighthouse. ://opsound.org/artist/dokapi

    work page 2015

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Trends in Hearing 22: 1--11

    Favre-Félix A, Graversen C, Hietkamp RK, Dau T and Lunner T (2018) Improving speech intelligibility by hearing aid eye-gaze steering: Conditions with head fixated in a multitalker environment. Trends in Hearing 22: 1--11. doi:10.1177/2331216518814388

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Neural Networks 64: 49--58

    Gonzalez-Dominguez J, Lopez-Moreno I, Moreno PJ and Gonzalez-Rodriguez J (2015) Frame-by-frame language identification in short utterances using deep neural networks. Neural Networks 64: 49--58. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2014.08.006. ://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0893608...

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    ://ovbox.de

    Grimm G (2021) ORLANDOviols consort box (ovbox). ://ovbox.de

    2021

  4. [12]

    doi:10.5281/ZENODO.7371406

    Grimm G (2022) Hoertech-ggmbh/tascar: Tascar: Release 0.228. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.7371406

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Acta Acoustica, in press doi:10.1051/aacus/2024011

    Grimm G (2024) Interactive low delay music and speech communication via network connections (ovbox). Acta Acoustica, in press doi:10.1051/aacus/2024011

    2024

  6. [14]

    doi:10.5281/ZENODO.5886987

    Grimm G, Hendrikse M and Hohmann V (2021) Pub environment. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.5886987. ://zenodo.org/record/5886987

    2021

  7. [15]

    Ear & Hearing 41(Supplement 1): 48S--55S

    Grimm G, Hendrikse MME and Hohmann V (2020) Review of Self - Motion in the Context of Hearing and Hearing Device Research . Ear & Hearing 41(Supplement 1): 48S--55S. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000940

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    VDE Verlag GmbH Berlin, Offenbach

    Grimm G, Kayser H, Hendrikse MME and Hohmann V (2018) A gaze-based attention model for spatially-aware hearing aids. VDE Verlag GmbH Berlin, Offenbach. ISBN 9783800747672, pp. 231--235. ://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8578029

    2018

  9. [17]

    doi:10.5281/ZENODO.13341921

    Grimm G, Kothe A and Hohmann V (2019 a ) First Order Ambisonics field recordings for use in virtual acoustic environments in the context of audiology. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.13341921. ://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13341921

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Acta Acustica united with Acustica 105(3): 566--578

    Grimm G, Luberadzka J and Hohmann V (2019 b ) A Toolbox for Rendering Virtual Acoustic Environments in the Context of Audiology . Acta Acustica united with Acustica 105(3): 566--578. doi:10.3813/AAA.919337

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Scientific Reports 9(1): 10451

    Hadley LV, Brimijoin WO and Whitmer WM (2019) Speech, movement, and gaze behaviours during dyadic conversation in noise. Scientific Reports 9(1): 10451. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-46416-0. ://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46416-0

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 28(2): 632--640

    Hadley LV, Whitmer WM, Brimijoin WO and Naylor G (2021) Conversation in small groups: Speaking and listening strategies depend on the complexities of the environment and group. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 28(2): 632--640. doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01821-9

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    In: 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops ( VRW )

    Hartwig M, Hohmann V and Grimm G (2021) Speaking with avatars - influence of social interaction on movement behavior in interactive hearing experiments. In: 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops ( VRW ) . Lisbon, Portugal: IEEE ...

    2021

  14. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11430 doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2309.11430

    Heeren J, Grimm G, Ewert S and Hohmann V (2023) Video screens for hearing research: Transmittance and reflectance of professional and other fabrics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11430 doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2309.11430

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Journal of Phonetics 38(4): 555--568

    Heldner M and Edlund J (2010) Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics 38(4): 555--568. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002. ://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0095447010000628

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    Speech Communication 101: 70--84

    Hendrikse MME, Llorach G, Grimm G and Hohmann V (2018) Influence of visual cues on head and eye movements during listening tasks in multi-talker audiovisual environments with animated characters. Speech Communication 101: 70--84. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2018.05.008. ://linkinghub...

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Trends in Hearing 23: 233121651987236

    Hendrikse MME, Llorach G, Hohmann V and Grimm G (2019) Movement and Gaze Behavior in Virtual Audiovisual Listening Environments Resembling Everyday Life . Trends in Hearing 23: 233121651987236. doi:10.1177/2331216519872362

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Disability and Rehabilitation 37(22): 2070--2075

    Hogan A, Phillips RL, Brumby SA, Williams W and Mercer-Grant C (2015) Higher social distress and lower psycho-social wellbeing: examining the coping capacity and health of people with hearing impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation 37(22): 2070--2075. doi:10.3109/09638288.20...

    2015

  19. [27]

    Frontiers in Psychology 12: 693124

    Holler J, Alday PM, Decuyper C, Geiger M, Kendrick KH and Meyer AS (2021) Competition Reduces Response Times in Multiparty Conversation . Frontiers in Psychology 12: 693124. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.693124

    2021

  20. [28]

    HNO 62(6): 443--448

    Hoppe U, Hast A and Hocke T (2014) Sprachverstehen mit Hörgeräten in Abhängigkeit vom Tongehör . HNO 62(6): 443--448. doi:10.1007/s00106-013-2813-1

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 27(07): 502--503

    Keidser G (2016) Introduction to Special Issue : Towards Ecologically Valid Protocols for the Assessment of Hearing and Hearing Devices . Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 27(07): 502--503. doi:10.3766/jaaa.27.7.1

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Yonsei Medical Journal 63(6): 570

    Kim GY, Cho YS, Byun HM, Seol HY, Lim J, Park JG and Moon IJ (2022) Factors Influencing Hearing Aid Satisfaction in South Korea . Yonsei Medical Journal 63(6): 570. doi:10.3349/ymj.2022.63.6.570

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Frontiers in Psychology 6

    Levinson SC and Torreira F (2015) Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731

    2015

  24. [32]

    In: 2016 8th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications ( VS - GAMES )

    Llorach G, Evans A, Blat J, Grimm G and Hohmann V (2016) Web- Based Live Speech - Driven Lip - Sync . In: 2016 8th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications ( VS - GAMES ) . Barcelona, Spain: IEEE. ISBN 978-1-5090-2722-4, pp. 1--4. doi:10.11...

    2016

  25. [33]

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 149(3): 1889--1900

    Lu H, McKinney MF, Zhang T and Oxenham AJ (2021) Investigating age, hearing loss, and background noise effects on speaker-targeted head and eye movements in three-way conversations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 149(3): 1889--1900. doi:10.1121/10.0003707

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Psychological Science 15(2): 133--137

    Munhall K, Jones JA, Callan DE, Kuratate T and Vatikiotis-Bateson E (2004) Visual Prosody and Speech Intelligibility : Head Movement Improves Auditory Speech Perception . Psychological Science 15(2): 133--137. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502010.x

    2004

  27. [35]

    Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 27(07): 504--514

    Naylor G (2016) Theoretical Issues of Validity in the Measurement of Aided Speech Reception Threshold in Noise for Comparing Nonlinear Hearing Aid Systems . Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 27(07): 504--514. doi:10.3766/jaaa.15093. ://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?...

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    International Journal of Audiology : 1--9doi:10.1080/14992027.2022.2095538

    Nicoras R, Gotowiec S, Hadley LV, Smeds K and Naylor G (2022) Conversation success in one-to-one and group conversation: a group concept mapping study of adults with normal and impaired hearing. International Journal of Audiology : 1--9doi:10.1080/14992027.2022.2095538

    2022

  29. [37]

    Pulkki V (1997) Virtual sound source positioning using vector base amplitude panning. J. Audio Eng. Soc 45: 456--466

    1997

  30. [38]

    Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 16(4): 474--493

    Punch R and Hyde M (2011) Social Participation of Children and Adolescents With Cochlear Implants : A Qualitative Analysis of Parent , Teacher , and Child Interviews . Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 16(4): 474--493. doi:10.1093/deafed/enr001

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    Educational Research Review 6(2): 135--147

    Richardson JT (2011) Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review 6(2): 135--147. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001. ://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1747938X11000029

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2: 750729

    Rogers SL, Broadbent R, Brown J, Fraser A and Speelman CP (2022) Realistic Motion Avatars are the Future for Social Interaction in Virtual Reality . Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2: 750729. doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.750729

    2022

  33. [41]

    doi:https://www.blender.org/

    Roosendaal T and Blender Foundation (2017) Blender Software . doi:https://www.blender.org/

    2017

  34. [42]

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 48(4): 583--597

    Saryazdi R and Chambers CG (2022) Gesture and reference to objects in the here-and-now: Listeners ’ use of gesture cues in quiet and in noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 48(4): 583--597. doi:10.1037/xlm0001035

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10(3): 266--281

    Schubert T, Friedmann F and Regenbrecht H (2001) The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10(3): 266--281. doi:10.1162/105474601300343603. ://direct.mit.edu/pvar/article/10/3/266-281/18310

    2001 doi

  36. [44]

    https://docs.vdo.ninja/

    Seguin S (2022) VDO .ninja. https://docs.vdo.ninja/

    2022

  37. [45]

    Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 32(08): 487--500

    Smeds K, Larsson J, Dahlquist M, Wolters F and Herrlin P (2021) Live evaluation of auditory preference, a laboratory test for evaluating auditory preference. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 32(08): 487--500. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1735213

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    In: International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research: Auditory Learning in Biological and Artificial Systems

    S rensen AJM, MacDonald EN and Lunner T (2020) Timing of turn taking between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired interlocutors. In: International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research: Auditory Learning in Biological and Artificial Systems. ISAAR, pp. 37--44

    2020

  39. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the 7th International Web Audio Conference ( WAC ),( Cannes , France )

    Tsioutas K and Xylomenos G (2022) Audio Delay in Web Conference Tools . In: Proceedings of the 7th International Web Audio Conference ( WAC ),( Cannes , France )

    2022

  40. [48]

    CyberPsychology & Behavior 6(5): 537--544

    Whalen TE, Petriu DC, Yang L, Petriu EM and Cordea MD (2003) Capturing behaviour for the use of avatars in virtual environments. CyberPsychology & Behavior 6(5): 537--544. doi:10.1089/109493103769710569

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 27(07): 527--540

    Wolters F, Smeds K, Schmidt E, Christensen EK and Norup C (2016) Common Sound Scenarios : A Context - Driven Categorization of Everyday Sound Environments for Application in Hearing - Device Research . Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 27(07): 527--540. doi:10.3766/...

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.