ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2021
Predictions of Miscommunication in Verbal Communication During Collaborative Joint Action.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of the current study was to examine the lexical and pragmatic factors that may contribute to turn-by-turn failures in communication (i.e., miscommunication) that arise regularly in interactive communication. Method Using a corpus from a collaborative dyadic building task, we investigated what differentiated successful from unsuccessful communication and potential factors associated with the choice to provide greater lexical information to a conversation partner. Results We found that more successful dyads' language tended to be associated with greater lexical density, lower ambiguity, and fewer questions. We also found participants were more lexically dense when accepting and integrating a partner's information (i.e., grounding) but were less lexically dense when responding to a question. Finally, an exploratory analysis suggested that dyads tended to spend more lexical effort when responding to an inquiry and used assent language accurately-that is, only when communication was successful. Conclusion Together, the results suggest that miscommunication both emerges and benefits from ambiguous and lexically dense utterances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.