Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Human-Like Embodied AI Interviewer: Employing Android ERICA in Real International Conference

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first deployment of a human-like embodied AI interviewer at an international conference, with 69% of 42 participants reporting a positive experience and a chained-LLM workflow that automatically turns interviews…

desk verdict A real deployment with a detailed system description, but the headline 69% figure is an unvalidated LLM-generated number, not measured participant sentiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09867 v1 pith:YWWSZH6C submitted 2024-12-13 cs.CL cs.HC

Zi Haur Pang , Yahui Fu , Divesh Lala , Mikey Elmers , Koji Inoue , Tatsuya Kawahara This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.HC
keywords embodiedconversationalagentandroidrobotinterviewspokendialoguesystembackchannelingconversationrepairuserfluencyadaptationchainedLLMpipelineconferencecasestudy
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 reports the first deployment of a human-like embodied AI interviewer at an international conference. Two robots — an android named ERICA and a humanoid named TELECO — conducted 42 short interviews with attendees of SIGDIAL 2024, and the authors report that 69% of participants described the experience as positive. The system combines attentive-listening behaviors, conversational repair, and speaking-rate adaptation for less fluent users, and it finishes with a chain of LLMs that corrects transcripts, summarizes opinions, and generates presentation slides and a spoken script. The authors present the case study as evidence that embodied AI interviewers can conduct interviews effectively in a real-world research setting, not just in the laboratory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the dialogue manager, which coordinates four behaviors: language understanding through sentiment and keyword detection; backchannel prediction using a multilingual Voice-Activity-Projection model that anticipates turn endings from prosody; conversation repair through repetition and encouragement; and user fluency adaptation that slows speech and lengthens turn-taking for speakers at or below 75 words per minute. The interview flow is a finite-state decision tree over template questions, with follow-up questions generated when responses are short or lack key words. After the interview, a chain of GPT-4o-mini LLMs performs ASR transcription correction, summarizes opinions into JSON, and generates python-pptx slides plus a delivery script, so that analysis and presentation are produced without human intervention.

What would settle it

Re-score the 42 recorded interviews with two independent human annotators who see only the raw ASR transcripts and the robot's questions; if the human-labeled positive proportion is not approximately 69% (or if a blind comparison with a human interviewer shows no difference in participant-rated experience), the paper's central effectiveness claim would be undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an embodied AI interviewer built on an android and a humanoid robot can conduct research interviews outside the lab, at a live international conference, and that the same system can turn raw audio into analyzed, presented results automatically. The evidence is a two-day case study at SIGDIAL 2024: 42 attendees participated in 2-3 minute interviews, and 29 of them (69.05%) were rated as having a positive experience, with 26.19% neutral and 4.76% negative. The paper reports that the chained-LLM post-interview workflow corrected ASR errors, summarized each participant's opinions into a structured JSON format, and then produced both slides and a presentation script delivered by a virtual agent at the conference's panel session. The effectiveness assessment rests on spontaneous comments and post-interview conversations rather than a formal questionnaire.

Load-bearing premise

The effectiveness claim depends on the assumption that the LLM pipeline's classification of interview transcripts into positive, neutral, and negative experiences is accurate enough to report 69% as the real positive rate, and no human annotation or formal survey is provided to check it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the system works as reported, researchers can collect open-ended opinions from dozens of conference attendees in two days and have the analysis, slides, and script ready for a closing panel without manual transcription or summarization.
  • The 69% positive / 26% neutral / 5% negative breakdown gives a concrete field baseline that future embodied interview systems can be measured against.
  • The fluency-adaptation mechanism, which slows speech and extends response time for speakers at or below 75 words per minute, makes the interview more accessible to non-native and less fluent participants at international events.
  • Because the case study used only fixed template questions, the authors' proposed use of LLM-generated follow-up questions is an untested extension; if added, it could address the reported repetitiveness complaint.
  • The system's post-interview pipeline is claimed to work end-to-end, so the same architecture could be reused for other structured spoken interviews beyond conference panels, provided transcripts are of similar quality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 69% positive figure is produced by the LLM classification pipeline, not by human-coded survey data; until human annotation checks the labels, the number should be read as a system-generated estimate rather than a validated measurement.
  • The 'just like a human' comparison is not directly tested, because there was no condition where a human interviewer ran the same questions; a controlled comparison would be needed to support that wording.
  • If the chained-LLM workflow is validated, it could generalize beyond interviews to any structured spoken interaction, turning meetings, focus groups, or oral histories into presentation-ready outputs automatically.
  • The reported split in reactions to ERICA's human-like appearance suggests that robot aesthetics, not only dialogue skill, drive user comfort; a larger study varying appearance while holding dialogue behavior fixed could isolate that effect.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes a human-like embodied AI interviewer built around the android robot ERICA (and the humanoid TELECO), with speech recognition, a dialogue manager that performs backchanneling, conversational repair, and user-fluency adaptation, and a post-interview pipeline of chained LLMs that corrects transcripts, summarizes opinions, and automatically generates presentation slides and scripts. The authors report a real-world deployment at SIGDIAL 2024 with 42 participants, of whom 69% reportedly had positive interview experiences, and they claim this demonstrates effectiveness 'just like a human' as well as the first such deployment at an international conference.

Significance. If the effectiveness claims were rigorously established, this would be a valuable field demonstration of an embodied conversational interviewer, and the modular architecture with an automated post-interview analysis pipeline is of practical interest. The paper provides useful transparency by including the exact LLM prompts, a dialogue example, and the generated slides and script, which supports reproducibility of the technical system. However, the central quantitative claim of effectiveness is not supported: the reported 69% positive-experience rate appears to be an output of the unvalidated chained-LLM pipeline rather than a direct measure of participant sentiment, and the 'just like a human' claim has no human-interviewer control condition. The evaluation therefore does not establish the paper's headline claims, despite the system-building contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Table 2 / Figure 14] The reported 69.05% positive-experience rate is not established as a direct participant sentiment. Section 3 states that 'no formal questionnaire feedback was solicited' and that experiences were gathered 'directly during the interviews and through spontaneous post-interview discussions,' yet the exact percentages in Table 2 (69.05%, 26.19%, 4.76%) match the LLM-generated presentation script in Figure 14, which reports that 29 of 42 participants rated their experience favorably. Section 2.7 and Figure 9 describe the chained-LLM pipeline whose prompt asks the model to classify 'Interview_Experience' as positive, neutral, or negative from ASR transcripts. No human annotation, inter-annotator agreement, or gold-standard validation is reported for these classifications. The central quantitative outcome is therefore a model output, not a measured or validated participant response.
  2. [Abstract / Section 3 / Section 4] The claim that the system conducted interviews 'just like a human' is a comparative claim that the study design cannot support. The case study has no human-interviewer control condition, no randomization, and no pre-registered outcome measure. Even if the 69% figure were validated, it would only describe participants' reactions to this system; it provides no evidence of equivalence with human interviewers. The comparative wording in the abstract and conclusion should be removed or made conditional on a controlled experiment.
  3. [Section 2.6 / Section 3] The real-world case study used 'solely the template-based approach' for question generation, as stated in Section 2.6. This means the LLM-based generative follow-up component, which is a substantive part of the described system and is highlighted in the introduction and architecture, was not exercised during the deployment. The evaluation therefore validates only a subset of the claimed system capabilities, and the conclusion that the full system is effective is not supported by the reported case study.
  4. [Section 3.2 / Section 5] The qualitative insights in Section 3.2 (e.g., reports of repetitiveness, discomfort with the android's appearance, and mixed reactions to backchannels) are presented as if they were systematically derived, but they are based on spontaneous post-interview discussions with no coding scheme, no inter-rater reliability, and no report of how many participants expressed each theme. The Limitations section acknowledges the small sample but does not list these evaluation-validity threats; the paper should either provide a systematic qualitative analysis or explicitly label these observations as anecdotal.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Author affiliations] The email domain 'sap.ist.i.kyoto-u-ac.jp' appears to be missing a period; it should likely be 'sap.ist.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp'.
  2. [Section 2.1 (Figure 1)] The term 'V oice-Activity-Projection' and the abbreviation 'V AP' contain rendering artifacts with extra spaces; please fix the LaTeX/formatting.
  3. [Figure 10 prompt] The prompt text contains 'SIGIDAL' instead of 'SIGDIAL'.
  4. [Section 2.2.4] The CEFR level citation for the WPM threshold relies on a commercial English-learning website; a more scholarly source would be preferable.
  5. [Table 2 / Figure 14] The percentages in Table 2 are given with two decimals (69.05%) while the text and Figure 14 refer to 29 out of 42 participants; consider using consistent rounding or whole-number counts throughout.
  6. [Introduction / Conclusion] The phrase 'first employment of such a system at an international conference' is a strong novelty claim that is difficult to verify as stated; consider softening to 'to our knowledge' or providing a systematic search statement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 69% positive-experience rate is produced by the system's own unvalidated LLM analysis pipeline, not by measured participant feedback.

  1. other [Abstract; Section 3 ('no formal questionnaire'); Section 2.7 / Figure 9 prompt; Table 2; Figure 14 script]
    "To ensure a natural interaction environment, no formal questionnaire feedback was solicited. Instead, experiences were gathered directly during the interviews and through spontaneous post-interview discussions with participants. ... 'Interview_Experience': Describe the experience as 'opinion' being positive, neutral, or negative, and provide a 'reason'. ... Overall, the sentiment towards interview experiences with conversational AI was quite positive, with 29 participants rating their experience favorably."

    The headline result (69% positive experiences) and Table 2's exact percentages (69.05/26.19/4.76) are presented as participant-reported feedback, but Section 3 explicitly says no formal questionnaire was administered. The only quantitative source is the chained-LLM post-interview pipeline of Section 2.7: Figure 9 instructs the LLM to classify each interviewee's 'Interview_Experience' as positive/neutral/negative, and Figure 14 - a script generated by that same pipeline - states that 29 of 42 participants rated their experience favorably, i.e., 69.05%. There is no human annotation or inter-annotator agreement validating these LLM labels.

full rationale

The paper's central effectiveness claim is the 69% positive-experience figure, and that figure is self-referential: no formal questionnaire or independent human coding exists, and the percentages exactly match the LLM-generated summary produced by the system's own post-interview pipeline (Section 2.7, Figures 9 and 14). This is a closed evaluation loop rather than an independent measurement, so the central quantitative result is not established as participant sentiment. The comparison 'just like a human' is also unsupported by any human-interviewer control condition, though that is a validity concern rather than a circularity. The system's components borrowed from prior work by the same authors (ERICA, VAP-based turn-taking) are not load-bearing for the evaluation claim, so they do not add circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is not mathematical, but the key reported outcome is generated by the system itself, warranting a partial circularity score.

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

The system does not derive new physics or empirical laws; it is an integration of existing components. The design choices above (thresholds, keyword lists, backchannel timings) are hand-set and affect behavior but are not fitted to optimize the central claim. The main load-bearing assumptions concern the validity of the self-report evaluation and the unvalidated LLM analysis pipeline.

free parameters (4)
  • WPM threshold for fluency adaptation = 75 words per minute
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section 2.2.4 to trigger slower speech and longer turn-taking for users with WPM at or below 75. It is a design choice, not fitted, but it directly affects system behavior.
  • Context length threshold = 5 words
    In Section 2.2.1, a follow-up question is generated if the context is under five words or lacks keywords. This threshold is hand-set.
  • Keyword set for follow-up and repair = e.g., 'because', 'as', 'pardon?', 'I don't know'
    Predefined keyword lists in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 determine when follow-up questions, repetitions, and encouragements are generated. These are hand-set and influence the interaction flow.
  • Backchannel repertoire timings = not specified precisely
    The paper describes a repertoire of verbal backchannels and head-nodding patterns with varying frequency and speed (Section 2.2.2), but exact parameters are not given, making replication difficult.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported positive experience is a valid measure of interview effectiveness
    The paper uses the 69% positive feedback rate as evidence for effectiveness (Section 3.2) without establishing that self-reports correlate with interview quality.
  • domain assumption The chained-LLM post-processing pipeline accurately corrects ASR errors and classifies sentiment
    The reported percentages and presentation scripts are generated by GPT-4o-mini (Section 2.7, Figure 14) but no validation against human coding is provided.
  • domain assumption The VAP-based turn-taking and ASR modules perform reliably in a noisy conference environment
    The system's conversational abilities depend on these components (Sections 2.1 and 2.2), but no accuracy or latency figures are reported.
  • domain assumption No prior comparable system has been deployed at an international conference
    The paper's 'first employment' claim (Abstract, Section 1) is a negative assertion not supported by a systematic literature search.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-Like Embodied AI Interviewer: Employing Android ERICA in Real International Conference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YWWSZH6C

@misc{pith2026241209867,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-Like Embodied AI Interviewer: Employing Android ERICA in Real International Conference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YWWSZH6C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09867}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces the human-like embodied AI interviewer which integrates android robots equipped with advanced conversational capabilities, including attentive listening, conversational repairs, and user fluency adaptation. Moreover, it can analyze and present results post-interview. We conducted a real-world case study at SIGDIAL 2024 with 42 participants, of whom 69% reported positive experiences. This study demonstrated the system's effectiveness in conducting interviews just like a human and marked the first employment of such a system at an international conference. The demonstration video is available at https://youtu.be/jCuw9g99KuE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09867 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall architecture of human-like interview system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall architecture of interview system re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overall architecture of interview dialogue flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overall architecture of post-interview processing workflow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Photo of interview dialogue with ERICA by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photo of interview dialogue with TELECO by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Prompt for correcting dialogue context due to ASR error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Prompt for summarizing dialogue context into JSON format [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Prompt for generating presentation slide context [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt for generating presentation slide python script from the presentation slide context [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Prompt for generation presentation script [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Dialogue example collected during the case studies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Presentation script created by our system for Gene’s presentation at the SIGDIAL conference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Presentation slides created by our system for Gene’s presentation at the SIGDIAL conference. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Keith Anderson, Elisabeth Andr \'e , Tobias Baur, Sara Bernardini, Mathieu Chollet, Evi Chryssafidou, Ionut Damian, Cathy Ennis, Arjan Egges, Patrick Gebhard, et al. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03161-3_35 The tardis framework: intelligent virtual agents for social coaching in job interviews . In International conference on advances in computer...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03161-3_35 2013

  2. [2]

    Pino Cutrone. 2005. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/mult.2005.24.3.237 A case study examining backchannels in conversations between japanese–british dyads . Multilingua, 24(3):237--274

    work page doi:10.1515/mult.2005.24.3.237 2005

  3. [3]

    Greg Filbeck, Victor Ricciardi, Harold R Evensky, Steve Z Fan, Hunter M Holzhauer, and Andrew Spieler. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.07.008 Behavioral finance: A panel discussion . Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 15:52--58

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbef.2017.07.008 2017

  4. [4]

    Dylan F Glas, Takashi Minato, Carlos T Ishi, Tatsuya Kawahara, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2016. 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745086 Erica: The erato intelligent conversational android . In 2016 25th IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pages 22--29. IEEE

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Yukiko Horikawa, Takahiro Miyashita, Akira Utsumi, Shogo Nishimura, and Satoshi Koizumi. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/SII55687.2023.10039460 Cybernetic avatar platform for supporting social activities of all people . In 2023 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII), pages 1--4. IEEE

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Saya Ike. 2010. https://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2009/E104.pdf Backchannel: a feature of japanese english . In JALT 2009 Conference Proceedings, volume 205, page 215. JALT Tokyo

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Koji Inoue, Kohei Hara, Divesh Lala, Shizuka Nakamura, Katsuya Takanashi, and Tatsuya Kawahara. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9323-9_25 A job interview dialogue system with autonomous android erica . In Increasing Naturalness and Flexibility in Spoken Dialogue Interaction: 10th International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems, pages 291--297. Springer

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-9323-9_25 2021

  8. [8]

    Koji Inoue, Bing'er Jiang, Erik Ekstedt, Tatsuya Kawahara, and Gabriel Skantze. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.06487 Multilingual turn-taking prediction using voice activity projection . arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06487

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.06487 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Koji Inoue, Bing'er Jiang, Erik Ekstedt, Tatsuya Kawahara, and Gabriel Skantze. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.04868 Real-time and continuous turn-taking prediction using voice activity projection . arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04868

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Koji Inoue, Pierrick Milhorat, Divesh Lala, Tianyu Zhao, and Tatsuya Kawahara. 2016. https://aclanthology.org/W16-3625 Talking with erica, an autonomous android . In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 212--215

    2016

  3. [11]

    Tatsuya Kawahara. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9443-0_6 Spoken dialogue system for a human-like conversational robot erica . In 9th International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue System Technology, pages 65--75. Springer

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Marty Laforest. 1994. https://doi.org/10.7202/1083530ar Listening strategies in sociolinguistic interviews. convergence and divergence . Culture, 14(2):51--61

    1994 doi

  5. [13]

    Akinobu Lee. 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10427369 MMDAgent-EX

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Stephen Louw, R Watson Todd, and Pattamawan Jimarkon. 2011. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pattamawan-Jimarkon/publication/326982626_Active_Listening_in_Qualitative_Research_Interviews/links/5b6fec2645851546c9fbf20f/Active-Listening-in-Qualitative-Research-Interviews.pdf...

    2011

  7. [15]

    William Marslen-Wilson. 1973. https://doi.org/10.1038/244522a0 Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies . Nature, 244(5417):522--523

    1973 doi

  8. [16]

    Senko K Maynard. 1986. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/ling.1986.24.6.1079 On back-channel behavior in japanese and english casual conversation . Linguistics, 24(6):1079--1108

    1986 doi

  9. [17]

    Jay F Nunamaker, Douglas C Derrick, Aaron C Elkins, Judee K Burgoon, and Mark W Patton. 2011. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222280102 Embodied conversational agent-based kiosk for automated interviewing . Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1):17--48

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Lisda Nurjaleka. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2991/conaplin-18.2019.300 Backchannel behavior in interview discourse: A contrastive study between japanese and indonesian . In Eleventh Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2018), pages 451--457. Atlantis Press

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Lisda Nurjaleka. 2023. https://doi.org/10.31849/reila.v5i2.13889 Backchannels responses as conversational strategies in the interaction of indonesian speakers in interview setting . REiLA: Journal of Research and Innovation in Language, 5(2):99--114

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Terje Rasmussen. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0178 Panel discussion ii: Culture and media technology. the internet and differentiation in the political public sphere . nordicom Review, 29(2):73--83

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    Jack C Richards. 1983. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586651 Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure . TESOL quarterly, 17(2):219--240

    1983 doi

  14. [22]

    Carl Ransom Rogers and Richard Evans Farson. 1957. https://lucianberescu.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Rogers-Farson-Active-Listening.pdf Active listening . Industrial Relations Center of the University of Chicago Chicago, IL

    1957

  15. [23]

    Pooja Rao SB, Manish Agnihotri, and Dinesh Babu Jayagopi. 2021. 10.9781/ijimai.2021.02.010 Improving asynchronous interview interaction with follow-up question generation . IJIMAI, 6(5):79--89

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    MA Tempero, J Berlin, M Ducreux, D Haller, P Harper, D Khayat, H-J Schmoll, A Sobrero, and E Van Cutsem. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq545 Pancreatic cancer treatment and research: an international expert panel discussion . Annals of oncology, 22(7):1500--1506

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Li Wang. 2021. 10.25236/AJHSS.2021.040517 British english-speaking speed 2020 . Acad. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci, 4:93--100

    2021

  18. [26]

    Elok Widiyati. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/e.1.1.1-16 The features of interrupting, collaborating, and backchannelling used by broadcaster and caller in telephone conversation . EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 1(1):1--16

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Linda Wong. 2009. Essential study skills. Houghton Mifflin

    2009

  20. [28]

    Nur Wulandari. 2017. https://journal.student.uny.ac.id/index.php/quill/article/view/9469 A conversation analysis of verbal backchannel response in radio program valentine in the morning interview with michael bubl \'e . Sastra Inggris-Quill, 6(6):585--596

    2017

  21. [29]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  22. [30]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.