skip to main content
10.1145/3172944.3172995acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Voice Input Tutoring System for Older Adults using Input Stumble Detection

Published:05 March 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many older adults are interested in smartphones but encounter difficulties in self-instruction and need support, especially text input. Voice input is a useful option for text input, but also presents some difficulties for older adults.In this paper, we propose a tutoring system for voice input that detects input stumbles using a statistical approach and provides instructions to overcome them. We construct the tutoring system based on the data from a user study with novice older adults. In an evaluation experiment, the number of input stumble and the sentence completion time of the participants using the tutoring system were significantly smaller than those without it. The results showed that the tutoring system resulted in the improvement of the efficiency of voice input for novice older adults.

References

  1. Beverly Beisge and Marilyn Kraitchman. 2003. Senior Centers: Opportunities For Successful Aging. Springer Publishing Company (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Google. 2017a. Android Developers. (2017). https://developer.android.com/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Google. 2017b. Cloud Speech API. (2017). https://cloud.google.com/speech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Masataka Goto, Katunobu Itou, and Satoru Hayamizu. 2002. Speech Completion: On-demand Completion Assistance Using Filled Pauses for Speech Input Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP '02). World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET), 1489--1492.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Toshiyuki Hagiya, Toshiharu Horiuchi, and Tomonori Yazaki. 2016. Typing Tutor: Individualized Tutoring in Text Entry for Older Adults Based on Input Stumble Detection. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, 733--744. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Caitlin Kelleher and Randy Pausch. 2005. Stencils-based tutorials: Design and evaluation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '05). ACM, 541--550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Taku Kudoh, Tsuyoshi Fukui, Takashi Okamoto, and Matt Francis. 2017. lucene-gosen. (2017). https://github.com/lucene-gosen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Rock Leung, Charlotte Tang, Shathel Haddad, Joanna Mcgrenere, Peter Graf, and Vilia Ingriany. 2012. How older adults learn to use mobile devices: Survey and field investigations. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 4, 3 (2012), 11:1--11:33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Yuan Liang, Koji Iwano, and Koichi Shinoda. 2014. Simple Gesture-based Error Correction Interface for Smartphone Speech Recognition. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association International Conference on Science and Technology for Humanity (INTERSPEECH '14). International Speech Communication Association (ISCA), 1194--1198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Roger W. Morrell, Denise C. Park, Christopher B. Mayhorn, and Catherine L. Kelley. 2000. Effects of age and instructions on teaching older adults to use eldercomm, an electronic bulletin board system. Educational Gerontology 26, 3 (2000), 221--235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Jun Ogata and Masataka Goto. 2005. Speech Repair: Quick Error Correction Just by Using Selection Operation for Speech Input Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech '05). International Speech Communication Association (ISCA), 133--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Pei-Luen Patrick Rau and Jia-Wen Hsu. 2005. Interaction Devices and Web Design for Novice Older Users. Educational Gerontology 31, 1 (2005), 19--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Wendy A. Rogers, Elizabeth F. Cabrera, Ne Walker, D. Kristen Gilbert, and Arthur D. Fisk. 1996. A survey of automatic teller machine usage across the adult lifespan. Human Factors (1996), 38,1; 156--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Yuan Tang. 2016. TF.Learn: TensorFlow's High-level Module for Distributed Machine Learning. In arXiv. 1612.04251.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Voice Input Tutoring System for Older Adults using Input Stumble Detection

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

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

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        IUI '18: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
        March 2018
        698 pages
        ISBN:9781450349451
        DOI:10.1145/3172944

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

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

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 5 March 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        IUI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate43of299submissions,14%Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader