Speech Entrainment in Multi-Party Conversations with a Digital Agent

Anfeng Xu; Kaitlin Zareno; Kleanthis Avramidis; Nicholas Mehlman; Shrikanth Narayanan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Speech Entrainment in Multi-Party Conversations with a Digital Agent

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adult groups entrain strongly with other humans within a turn across acoustic, emotional, and deep-model features, while neither adults nor families entrain with the digital agent locally.

desk verdict The multiparty corpus is a real asset; the headline local-entrainment result is most plausibly a shared-prompt artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22939 v1 pith:Q3YZ3E3M submitted 2026-07-24 eess.AS

Nicholas Mehlman , Kaitlin Zareno , Kleanthis Avramidis , Anfeng Xu , Shrikanth Narayanan This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AS

keywords multi-partyinteractionconversationalentrainmentdigitalagentchild-adultlocalglobalspeechfoundationmodelsacoustic-prosodicfeatures

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 people adapt their speaking style to each other and to a digital agent in multi-party conversations. It introduces a dataset of adult groups and family groups talking with an animated agent, and measures entrainment at two timescales: within-turn local entrainment and global change over a session. The central finding is that adults strongly entrain to other humans across nearly all measured features, while neither adults nor families locally entrain to the agent. Families entrain mainly on emotional and high-level cues rather than pitch or amplitude, and global entrainment is weak for adults and absent for families. The results imply that digital agents are not treated as conversational peers by adults, and that participant age and interaction structure shape who adapts to whom.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a mixed-effects regression that compares pairwise distances in a feature between two speakers inside the same turn versus across different turns. The fixed-effect coefficient gamma estimates how much smaller the within-turn distance is after accounting for the speaker pair via a random intercept; a negative gamma is interpreted as local entrainment. Features come from hand-crafted acoustic descriptors (amplitude statistics, pitch, and emotional dimensions) and from pre-trained speech-model embeddings intended to capture semantic and phonetic content. The same regression design is reused for global entrainment by contrasting the first five turns with the last five turns

What would settle it

Re-run the local-entrainment regression with a fixed effect for the agent's prompt, or compare only pairs of responses that follow the identical prompt. If the within-turn coefficient for adult pairs drops toward zero, the reported entrainment is a shared-context artifact rather than speaker-to-speaker adaptation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in a structured multi-party conversation with a digital agent, local entrainment—speakers becoming more similar within a single turn—is consistent among human speakers but does not extend to the agent. For adult pairs, almost every hand-crafted and model-based feature shows a significant negative within-turn coefficient, meaning adult participants align pitch, amplitude, emotion, and semantic/phonetic similarity with other humans. Family groups show a narrower pattern: entrainment on emotional arousal, dominance, and deep embeddings, but not on pitch or amplitude; child–guardian pairs follow the same pattern. Neither cohort shows local entrainment with the a

Load-bearing premise

The local-entrainment results assume that two human speakers sounding alike within a turn is caused by mutual adaptation, not by both of them responding to the same agent prompt.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If adults consistently entrain with each other but not with the agent, digital agents in multi-party settings should not expect human speakers to accommodate to the agent's acoustic or emotional style.
Entrainment is feature-specific: family groups converge on emotional arousal and dominance while showing no pitch or amplitude convergence, so a single global entrainment score would hide the effect.
The absence of local agent entrainment in both cohorts suggests the agent occupies a distinct conversational role rather than a peer role in question-driven interactions.
Children's global semantic convergence with the agent, despite no local entrainment, indicates that child–agent adaptation unfolds over longer timescales and may reflect relationship-building.
The apparent amplitude decoupling between children and the agent reflects children becoming louder and more variable over the session, not a failure to entrain.

Reading between the lines

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

A caution: the local-entrainment design compares within-turn responses to cross-turn responses, so it cannot rule out that two speakers are independently aligning to the same agent prompt rather than to each other. Adding prompt identity as a covariate, or restricting comparisons to identical prompts, would test this directly.
If that common-cause explanation survives, the family emotional-entrainment result—found with the same design—would also need re-examination, since both speakers might be reacting to the same question.
The cohort difference suggests a testable extension: children may track salient emotional cues while ignoring low-level acoustic detail; a playback study that manipulates only pitch or only emotional tone could separate which cues children actually follow.
For agent design, the results imply that a voice agent wanting rapport with adult groups may need to actively entrain to the humans rather than wait for adaptation; the child-only global effect hints that relationship-building with younger users requires a longer arc.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The dataset is a real contribution; the central claim is not yet supported. The local entrainment analysis compares feature distances within a turn against distances across turns, but by the paper's own definition a turn is one agent prompt plus the responses to it. So same-turn utterances share the prompt verbatim, and cross-turn utterances do not. Two answers to the same question will be closer in topic, emotion, and even prosodic register for reasons that have nothing to do with mutual adaptation. The mixed-effects model includes only a same-turn indicator and a random intercept; there is no covariate for prompt identity, topic, or anything that would break that common cause. It is telling that the strongest effects appear in Whisper semantic embeddings, the feature space where shared content most directly lowers distance. The paper's Section 5 discussion of 'unique conversational niches' applies to the agent, not to human-human pairs, so the confound is not addressed.

What is genuinely new here is the setting: multiparty groups of adults or families interacting with a digital agent, annotated and segmented by turns. The feature set is broad—pitch, amplitude, emotion, Whisper, Mimi—and the global entrainment analysis uses a different design (first five vs last five turns) that is not subject to the same-prompt confound. The child-agent global entrainment in Whisper features is worth taking seriously, though it rests on ten family sessions.

Other soft spots: the paper drops the non-significant P2A and C2A local modes from the tables instead of reporting them, which is selective reporting. There are no confidence intervals, only p-values. No data or code is released. The family cohort is small.

I would not reject it out of hand. The question is important and the corpus is a contribution. But the headline result—adult local entrainment with other humans—needs a prompt/topic control, effect sizes with uncertainty, and preferably a baseline condition (e.g., the same prompt presented to different groups) before it can be believed. The global results are cleaner and could stand with modest claims. A revision that fixes the local-entrainment analysis would turn this from a promising dataset paper into a solid empirical paper. Worth sending to reviewers, but only with the expectation of substantive revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a new corpus of multiparty conversations between groups of humans (adults or families with children) and a digital agent, and studies entrainment at two timescales: local entrainment within a conversational turn and global entrainment across the session (first vs. last five turns). Using handcrafted acoustic-prosodic features, emotion-model scores/embeddings, Whisper embeddings, and Mimi neural-codec embeddings, the authors fit mixed-effects regressions of pairwise feature distances on a same-turn indicator. They report strong local P2P entrainment in adults across most features, weaker and emotion/deep-feature-only local entrainment in families, no local entrainment with the agent, and limited global entrainment, with children showing global semantic convergence to the agent. The paper interprets these results in terms of rapport, child sensitivity to salient cues, and the special status of the digital agent.

Significance. If the local-entrainment claim is validated, the dataset and the multi-feature analysis pipeline would be a useful addition to multiparty and child-agent interaction research. The study is novel in combining a multiparty human-agent paradigm with both knowledge-driven and foundation-model features, and the use of mixed-effects models with session/speaker-pair random intercepts and Bonferroni correction is methodologically careful. The feature extractors are all externally pretrained and not tuned to the outcome, so the analysis is not circular in the narrow sense. However, the central positive finding—adult local entrainment with other humans—is threatened by a common-cause confound: within-turn human utterances share the same agent prompt, while cross-turn utterances do not. Because the regression in Section 3.1 has no control for prompt identity or topic, the negative γ values in Tables 2–3 may reflect shared content rather than speaker adaptation. This issue is load-bearing for the abstract's main conclusion and needs to be addressed before the result can be trusted.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (1); Tables 2–3] The local-entrainment model Δ = β_{s,a,b} + γ·I(i,j) + ε has only a same-turn indicator as the fixed predictor, together with a random intercept for session/speaker-pair. By the turn definition in Section 2.1, a turn is one agent prompt followed by participants' responses. Thus, within-turn P2P pairs are simultaneously same-prompt pairs, while cross-turn pairs are different-prompt pairs. A shared prompt can make two responses more similar in topic, lexical content, emotional register, and even prosody with zero mutual adaptation. This confound is not addressed in the paper: Section 5's 'unique conversational niches' sentence concerns the agent–human role separation, not P2P prompt sharing. The pattern in Table 3—largest effects for Whisper semantic embeddings—is exactly what the confound predicts. I request a prompt-controlled reanalysis: add prompt identity/topic as a random or fixed ef
[Section 3.2, Tables 2–3] The text concludes from the non-significant P2A/C2A local effects that participants 'instinctively treated the agent differently.' This inference goes beyond the data. Null P2A effects cannot serve as a control for the P2P confound because the shared-prompt mechanism does not operate in the same way: an agent's prompt and a participant's response are not acoustically or semantically commensurate, and the agent's synthetic voice occupies a different feature-space region. The absence of a significant P2A effect is also not evidence of absence without a power analysis or equivalence test. I recommend reporting the full P2A/C2A results with effect sizes and uncertainty, and softening the causal interpretation of these null results.
[Section 4.1, Table 1] The global-entrainment analysis compares the first 5 turns with the last 5 turns. Table 1 gives only the median number of turns per session; if any session has fewer than 10 turns, the two windows overlap and the fixed effect is not a clean contrast. The minimum turns per session should be reported, and sessions with fewer than 10 turns should be excluded or handled explicitly. This does not affect the central local-entrainment claim, but it is necessary for the global results to be interpretable.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.2] Typo: 'prior the the session' should be 'prior to the session.'
[Tables 2–3 captions] The caption says '*' denotes p<0.0001 after Bonferroni correction while 'bold values were significant.' Since some entries have significant p-values below 0.05 but above 0.0001 (e.g., Table 3, Emotion dist_cos p=0.0019), the visual encoding is ambiguous. Please clarify the relation between the star threshold, the boldface rule, and the Bonferroni correction.
[Section 2.2.2] The notation dist_cos and dist_ℓ2 is used without definition. Define them in the text or in the table captions.
[Section 2.1] The paper says the agent's speech was 'automatically removed from the captured audio' but later analyzes participant-to-agent distances. Clarify whether the cached agent audio is the same signal that was removed, and how synchronization with the human channel was ensured.
[Section 5] The limitations list mentions the small number of family sessions, the structured interview paradigm, and the interpretability of embeddings, but it does not mention the shared-prompt confound. Since this is the main threat to the central local-entrainment result, it should be acknowledged and addressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: entrainment coefficients are empirical regression estimates from external feature extractors.

full rationale

The derivation chain is statistical, not definitional. Local entrainment is tested by estimating the fixed effect γ in the mixed-effects model Δ=β+γI+ε (Section 3.1) from measured feature distances; no parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction. The feature extractors (PESTO, VoXProfile, Whisper, Mimi) are pretrained external models, not optimized for the entrainment outcome. No load-bearing self-citation chain forces the result; the overlapping-author citations ([5],[6],[11],[12],[22]) are background or an external benchmark, and none forbids alternatives or defines the entrainment measure. The shared-agent-prompt confound noted in the review—since a turn is defined as 'one agent prompt followed by the participants' responses'—is a genuine validity threat to the causal interpretation of within-turn similarity, but it is not circularity: the γ estimates are not algebraically forced by prompt identity, and the model could have returned null effects. Indeed, the paper reports non-significant and positive γs in several conditions. Accordingly, no step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies primarily on assumptions about the validity of feature extractors and the statistical model. No free parameters are fitted to force the entrainment result; the only hand-chosen quantity is the 5-turn window for global entrainment. The main unstated assumption is the shared-prompt confound, which is not in the axiom ledger but is captured as a red flag and in the weakest_assumption.

free parameters (1)

global entrainment window size = 5 turns
Global entrainment is operationalized by comparing the first 5 turns to the last 5 turns (Section 4.1). The choice of 5 is arbitrary; with median 24.5 (adults) and 28 (families) turns per session, a different window (e.g., 3 or 7) could change results. No sensitivity analysis is reported.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Whisper embeddings primarily capture semantic content of speech.
The paper states 'We expect these representations to primarily capture semantic attributes' (Section 2.2.2). This assumption underlies the interpretation of Whisper-distance convergence as semantic entrainment. Whisper is trained for ASR and may also encode style/acoustic variation.
domain assumption Mimi embeddings primarily capture phonetic properties.
The paper expects Mimi features to 'primarily capture the phonetic aspects of the speech' (Section 2.2.2). The neural codec may encode other aspects such as prosody or speaker identity.
domain assumption VoXProfile arousal/valence/dominance predictions are valid emotion measures.
Emotion features rely on VoXProfile models averaged over Whisper and WavLM versions (Section 2.2.1). Their reliability on child speech and agent audio is not validated here, and the averaging of two models is not justified.
standard math Mixed-effects regression with random intercept per session/speaker-pair adequately accounts for non-independence of pairwise distances.
The model in Section 3.1 treats each utterance-pair as an observation, but pairs overlap (the same utterance appears in many pairs), which can underestimate variance. The random intercept may not fully capture this dependency structure.
domain assumption The human-annotated speaker segmentation from a single beamformed channel is accurate enough for feature extraction.
Data collection (Section 2.1) says the team 'manually annotated' and then segmented the array recording into per-speaker files. Errors in separation could affect amplitude and pitch features, particularly during overlapping speech.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Speech Entrainment in Multi-Party Conversations with a Digital Agent." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3YZ3E3M

@misc{pith2026260722939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Speech Entrainment in Multi-Party Conversations with a Digital Agent},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3YZ3E3M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22939}
}

read the original abstract

It has been widely observed that individuals engaged in conversation tend to adapt their speaking style to more closely match the other interlocutors. However, most prior work has focused on dyadic interactions among humans. In this paper, we investigate entrainment effects in a novel setting: a multi-party interaction between groups of humans and a digital agent. This scenario offers important insights into how the participation of non-human actors modulates both short-time and temporally resolved conversational dynamics. To address these questions, we collect and analyze a unique dataset that consists of both adult and family (parent/children) sessions, enabling us to examine how entrainment manifests differently across these cohorts. We consider a range of knowledge-driven and model-based entrainment features and find that, while individuals locally entrain with other humans, global entrainment, and entrainment with the agent remains limited and cohort-dependent.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

Researchers have observed that a participant’s speech behavior, including pitch and speaking rate, tends to converge with that of the other inter- locutors [2, 3]

Introduction Entrainment, i.e., the process by which speakers adopt similar speaking styles during a conversation, is a widely observed phe- nomenon in the sociolinguistic literature [1]. Researchers have observed that a participant’s speech behavior, including pitch and speaking rate, tends to converge with that of the other inter- locutors [2, 3]. To da...

arXiv 2026
[2]

Data Collection For our experiment, we recruited 2 separate cohorts of English- speaking participants

Methods 2.1. Data Collection For our experiment, we recruited 2 separate cohorts of English- speaking participants. The first cohort consisted of young adults (largely undergraduate and master’s students from a major uni- versity), while the second consisted of families with young chil- dren between the ages of 8 and 14. Each cohort participated in an 8 t...
[3]

Methodology We computed pairwise differences between features for a given interaction mode (e.g., P2P vs

Local Entrainment 3.1. Methodology We computed pairwise differences between features for a given interaction mode (e.g., P2P vs. P2A) both within a given turn and across different turns within the same session. To assess local entrainment, we tested whether features were more simi- lar (i.e., smaller differences) in the within-turn case. This was done usi...

arXiv
[4]

Methodology We computed inter-turn pairwise differences between features as in 3.1

Global Entrainment 4.1. Methodology We computed inter-turn pairwise differences between features as in 3.1. However, rather than comparing them to cross-turn differences, we instead compare the first5turns to the last5 Table 4:Participant-to-participant (P2P)globalentrainment for adults and families sessions. The coefficientγreflects the fixed effect of t...

arXiv
[5]

Discussion and Conclusions While our findings reveal strong inter-group entrainment effects on a local level, global inter-group entrainment was minimal for the adult cohort, and non-existent for the families. This dif- ference may be attributable to the experimental procedure, in particular the fact that the subjects spent approximately 10 min- utes toge...
[6]

Acknowledgments Thanks to Disney Research for their help in the study design and data collection process
[7]

These tools were not prompted for results gener- ation, data analysis, data interpretation, or at any stage of data collection

Generative AI Use Disclosure Generative AI tools were used in this study to assist with lan- guage polishing, manuscript editing, and assisting in code im- plementations to perform analyses and visualizations relevant to this paper. These tools were not prompted for results gener- ation, data analysis, data interpretation, or at any stage of data collecti...
[8]

Communication accommo- dation theory,

C. Gallois, T. Ogay, and H. Giles, “Communication accommo- dation theory,”Theorizing about intercultural communication, pp. 121–148, 2005

2005

Show all 33 references

[9]

Classifying conversational entrain- ment of speech behavior: An expanded framework and review,

C. J. Wynn and S. A. Borrie, “Classifying conversational entrain- ment of speech behavior: An expanded framework and review,” Journal of Phonetics, vol. 94, p. 101173, 2022

2022
[10]

Acoustic-prosodic entrainment and social behav- ior,

R. Levitan, A. Gravano, L. Willson, ˇS. Beˇnuˇs, J. Hirschberg, and A. Nenkova, “Acoustic-prosodic entrainment and social behav- ior,” inProceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human language technolo...

2012
[11]

On phonetic convergence during conversational in- teraction,

J. S. Pardo, “On phonetic convergence during conversational in- teraction,”The Journal of the acoustical society of America, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 2382–2393, 2006

2006
[12]

Quan- tification of prosodic entrainment in affective spontaneous spo- ken interactions of married couples,

C.-C. Lee, M. Black, A. Katsamanis, A. C. Lammert, B. R. Bau- com, A. Christensen, P. G. Georgiou, and S. S. Narayanan, “Quan- tification of prosodic entrainment in affective spontaneous spo- ken interactions of married couples,” inProc. Interspeech 2010, pp. 793–796, 2010

2010
[13]

Computing vocal entrainment: A signal-derived pca-based quantification scheme with application to affect analysis in married couple interactions,

C.-C. Lee, A. Katsamanis, M. P. Black, B. Baucom, A. Chris- tensen, P. Georgiou, and S. S. Narayanan, “Computing vocal entrainment: A signal-derived pca-based quantification scheme with application to affect analysis in married couple interactions,” Computer, Speech, and Langu...

2014
[14]

Convergence of mean vocal intensity in dyadic com- munication as a function of social desirability,

M. Natale, “Convergence of mean vocal intensity in dyadic com- munication as a function of social desirability,”Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, vol. 32, pp. 790–804, 1975

1975
[15]

Pitch convergence as an ef- fect of perceived attractiveness and likability.,

J. Michalsky and H. Schoormann, “Pitch convergence as an ef- fect of perceived attractiveness and likability.,” inInterspeech, pp. 2253–2256, 2017

2017
[16]

Entrain- ment in multi-party spoken dialogues at multiple linguistic levels,

Z. Rahimi, A. Kumar, D. Litman, S. Paletz, and M. Yu, “Entrain- ment in multi-party spoken dialogues at multiple linguistic levels,” inProceedings of Interspeech 2017, pp. 1696–1700, 2017

2017
[17]

Measuring acoustic-prosodic en- trainment with respect to multiple levels and dimensions,

R. Levitan and J. Hirschberg, “Measuring acoustic-prosodic en- trainment with respect to multiple levels and dimensions,” inIn- terspeech, 2011

2011
[18]

Towards an unsupervised entrainment distance in conversational speech us- ing deep neural networks,

M. Nasir, B. Baucom, S. Narayanan, and P. Georgiou, “Towards an unsupervised entrainment distance in conversational speech us- ing deep neural networks,” inProc. Interspeech 2018, pp. 3423– 3427, 2018

2018
[19]

Modeling vocal entrainment in conversational speech using deep unsupervised learning,

M. Nasir, B. Baucom, C. Bryan, S. Narayanan, and P. Georgiou, “Modeling vocal entrainment in conversational speech using deep unsupervised learning,”IEEE Transactions on Affective Comput- ing, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1651–1663, 2022

2022
[20]

Gessinger,Phonetic accommodation of human interlocutors in the context of human-computer interaction

I. Gessinger,Phonetic accommodation of human interlocutors in the context of human-computer interaction. PhD thesis, Saarland University, Saarbr¨ucken, Germany, 2022

2022
[21]

Speech rate adjustments in conversations with an amazon alexa social- bot,

M. Cohn, K.-H. Liang, M. Sarian, G. Zellou, and Z. Yu, “Speech rate adjustments in conversations with an amazon alexa social- bot,”Frontiers in Communication, vol. V olume 6 - 2021, 2021

2021
[22]

Implementing acoustic- prosodic entrainment in a conversational avatar.,

R. Levitan, S. Benus, R. H. G ´alvez, A. Gravano, F. Savoretti, M. Trnka, A. Weise, and J. Hirschberg, “Implementing acoustic- prosodic entrainment in a conversational avatar.,” inInterspeech, vol. 16, pp. 1166–1170, San Francisco, CA, 2016

2016
[23]

Timing and entrainment of multimodal backchanneling behavior for an em- bodied conversational agent,

B. Inden, Z. Malisz, P. Wagner, and I. Wachsmuth, “Timing and entrainment of multimodal backchanneling behavior for an em- bodied conversational agent,” inProceedings of the 15th ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ICMI ’13, (New York, NY , USA), p. 181–...

2013
[24]

Prosodic entrainment and trust in human-computer interaction,

ˇS. Be ˇnuˇs, M. Trnka, E. Kuric, L. Mart ´ak, A. Gravano, J. Hirschberg, and R. Levitan, “Prosodic entrainment and trust in human-computer interaction,” inProceedings of Speech Prosody 2018, 2018

2018
[25]

How children speak with their voice assistant sila depends on what they think about her,

A. Gampe, K. Zahner-Ritter, J. J. M ¨uller, and S. R. Schmid, “How children speak with their voice assistant sila depends on what they think about her,”Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 143, p. 107693, 2023

2023
[26]

Amplitude convergence in children’s conversational speech with animated personas,

R. Coulston, S. L. Oviatt, and C. Darves, “Amplitude convergence in children’s conversational speech with animated personas,” in Interspeech, 2002

2002
[27]

It’s alignment all the way down, but not all the way up: Speakers align on some features but not others within a dialogue,

R. Ostrand and E. Chodroff, “It’s alignment all the way down, but not all the way up: Speakers align on some features but not others within a dialogue,”Journal of Phonetics, vol. 88, p. 101074, 2021

2021
[28]

Pesto: Real-time pitch estimation with self- supervised transposition-equivariant objective,

A. Riou, B. Torres, B. Hayes, S. Lattner, G. Hadjeres, G. Richard, and G. Peeters, “Pesto: Real-time pitch estimation with self- supervised transposition-equivariant objective,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01488, 2025

2025
[29]

V ox-profile: A speech foundation model benchmark for characterizing diverse speaker and speech traits,

T. Feng, J. Lee, A. Xu, Y . Lee, T. Lertpetchpun, X. Shi, H. Wang, T. Thebaud, L. Moro-Velazquez, D. Byrd, N. De- hak, and S. Narayanan, “V ox-profile: A speech foundation model benchmark for characterizing diverse speaker and speech traits,” 2025

2025
[30]

Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak su- pervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak su- pervision,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 28492–28518, PMLR, 2023

2023
[31]

Moshi: a speech-text foundation model for real-time dialogue,

A. D ´efossez, L. Mazar´e, M. Orsini, A. Royer, P. P´erez, H. J´egou, E. Grave, and N. Zeghidour, “Moshi: a speech-text foundation model for real-time dialogue,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00037, 2024

2024 arXiv
[32]

Bonferroni,Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle prob- abilit`a

C. Bonferroni,Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle prob- abilit`a. Pubblicazioni del R. Istituto superiore di scienze eco- nomiche e commerciali di Firenze, Seeber, 1936

1936
[33]

Social aspects of entrainment in spoken interaction,

ˇS. Be ˇnuˇs, “Social aspects of entrainment in spoken interaction,” Cognitive Computation, vol. 6, pp. 802–813, 2014

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Researchers have observed that a participant’s speech behavior, including pitch and speaking rate, tends to converge with that of the other inter- locutors [2, 3]

Introduction Entrainment, i.e., the process by which speakers adopt similar speaking styles during a conversation, is a widely observed phe- nomenon in the sociolinguistic literature [1]. Researchers have observed that a participant’s speech behavior, including pitch and speaking rate, tends to converge with that of the other inter- locutors [2, 3]. To da...

arXiv 2026

[2] [2]

Data Collection For our experiment, we recruited 2 separate cohorts of English- speaking participants

Methods 2.1. Data Collection For our experiment, we recruited 2 separate cohorts of English- speaking participants. The first cohort consisted of young adults (largely undergraduate and master’s students from a major uni- versity), while the second consisted of families with young chil- dren between the ages of 8 and 14. Each cohort participated in an 8 t...

[3] [3]

Methodology We computed pairwise differences between features for a given interaction mode (e.g., P2P vs

Local Entrainment 3.1. Methodology We computed pairwise differences between features for a given interaction mode (e.g., P2P vs. P2A) both within a given turn and across different turns within the same session. To assess local entrainment, we tested whether features were more simi- lar (i.e., smaller differences) in the within-turn case. This was done usi...

arXiv

[4] [4]

Methodology We computed inter-turn pairwise differences between features as in 3.1

Global Entrainment 4.1. Methodology We computed inter-turn pairwise differences between features as in 3.1. However, rather than comparing them to cross-turn differences, we instead compare the first5turns to the last5 Table 4:Participant-to-participant (P2P)globalentrainment for adults and families sessions. The coefficientγreflects the fixed effect of t...

arXiv

[5] [5]

Discussion and Conclusions While our findings reveal strong inter-group entrainment effects on a local level, global inter-group entrainment was minimal for the adult cohort, and non-existent for the families. This dif- ference may be attributable to the experimental procedure, in particular the fact that the subjects spent approximately 10 min- utes toge...

[6] [6]

Acknowledgments Thanks to Disney Research for their help in the study design and data collection process

[7] [7]

These tools were not prompted for results gener- ation, data analysis, data interpretation, or at any stage of data collection

Generative AI Use Disclosure Generative AI tools were used in this study to assist with lan- guage polishing, manuscript editing, and assisting in code im- plementations to perform analyses and visualizations relevant to this paper. These tools were not prompted for results gener- ation, data analysis, data interpretation, or at any stage of data collecti...

[8] [8]

Communication accommo- dation theory,

C. Gallois, T. Ogay, and H. Giles, “Communication accommo- dation theory,”Theorizing about intercultural communication, pp. 121–148, 2005

2005