meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
|
how_to_pick_synonyms [2018/08/21 11:30] 127.0.0.1 external edit |
how_to_pick_synonyms [2019/08/08 13:12] (current) lisa.illgen_concentrix.com Added Anchor Links |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==== How to Pick Synonyms===== | ==== How to Pick Synonyms===== | ||
| **// Some background on habitability//**\\ | **// Some background on habitability//**\\ | ||
| - | Habitability refers to the ease, naturalness, and effectiveness with which callers can use spoken-language systems (Watt, 1968). According to habitability theory, there are four domains in which users of spoken-language systems must stay: | + | Habitability refers to the ease, naturalness, and effectiveness with which callers can use spoken-language systems ([[references#watt|Watt, 1968]]). According to habitability theory, there are four domains in which users of spoken-language systems must stay: |
| * Conceptual (stock quote systems can't respond to questions about current road traffic) | * Conceptual (stock quote systems can't respond to questions about current road traffic) | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| * Lexical (the system might allow many or only a few, if any, synonyms for the words in the application) | * Lexical (the system might allow many or only a few, if any, synonyms for the words in the application) | ||
| - | "A natural language system must be made habitable in all four domains because it will be difficult for users to learn which domain is violated with the system rejects an expression" (Ogden & Bernick, 1997, p. 139). | + | "A natural language system must be made habitable in all four domains because it will be difficult for users to learn which domain is violated with the system rejects an expression" ([[references#ogden|Ogden & Bernick, 1997]], p. 139). |
| The elements of habitability are largely controlled by the capability of the active grammar(s). | The elements of habitability are largely controlled by the capability of the active grammar(s). | ||
| **// Start with the smallest grammar that has a chance of being habitable //**\\ | **// Start with the smallest grammar that has a chance of being habitable //**\\ | ||
| - | All other things being equal, the more habitable an application is, the less accurate the recognition accuracy because the potential for acoustic confusion has increased. Indeed, one common cause of misrecognition is acoustic confusability among currently active phrases in grammar (Fosler-Lussier et al., 2005). | + | All other things being equal, the more habitable an application is, the less accurate the recognition accuracy because the potential for acoustic confusion has increased. Indeed, one common cause of misrecognition is acoustic confusability among currently active phrases in grammar ([[references#fosler-lussier|Fosler-Lussier et al., 2005]]). |
| Keeping in mind that callers tend to mimic what they hear in prompts (see [[Mimicry of Prompt]]), to as great an extent as possible, create choices that have high acoustic distinctiveness. Don't go overboard, though. If "A" and "B" are what everybody calls two things and there are no reasonable synonyms that could be used in place of one or the other of them, then by no means should you artificially stuff one option into an ill-fitting synonym. Once you've created the choices, restrict the grammar to those choices. Adding back in the acoustically confusable synonyms defeats the purpose of making the choices in the prompt distinct. Also keep in mind, however, that systems that strive for a more conversational tone will necessarily have more complex grammars -- but it is often possible to satisfy the desire for a conversational tone and the presentation of choices that have high acoustic distinctiveness. In addition, somewhat counterintuitvely, longer menu options such as "I need assistance" can be easier to for the recognizer to understand than shorter menu options such as "help." But, this has to be counterbalanced with the need to hear, understand and repeat back the menu option for it to be usable at all. | Keeping in mind that callers tend to mimic what they hear in prompts (see [[Mimicry of Prompt]]), to as great an extent as possible, create choices that have high acoustic distinctiveness. Don't go overboard, though. If "A" and "B" are what everybody calls two things and there are no reasonable synonyms that could be used in place of one or the other of them, then by no means should you artificially stuff one option into an ill-fitting synonym. Once you've created the choices, restrict the grammar to those choices. Adding back in the acoustically confusable synonyms defeats the purpose of making the choices in the prompt distinct. Also keep in mind, however, that systems that strive for a more conversational tone will necessarily have more complex grammars -- but it is often possible to satisfy the desire for a conversational tone and the presentation of choices that have high acoustic distinctiveness. In addition, somewhat counterintuitvely, longer menu options such as "I need assistance" can be easier to for the recognizer to understand than shorter menu options such as "help." But, this has to be counterbalanced with the need to hear, understand and repeat back the menu option for it to be usable at all. | ||