媒体格式重要吗?调查音频与文本社交媒体信息的毒性、情绪和主题

Jamy J. Li, Karen Penaranda Valdivia
{"title":"媒体格式重要吗?调查音频与文本社交媒体信息的毒性、情绪和主题","authors":"Jamy J. Li, Karen Penaranda Valdivia","doi":"10.1145/3527188.3561927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Audio messaging and voice-based interactions are growing in popularity. Lexical features of a manually-curated dataset of real-world audio tweets, as well as text and video/image tweets from the same user accounts, are analyzed to explore how user-generated audio differs from text. The toxicity, sentiment, topic and length of audio tweet transcripts are compared with their accompanying text, date-matched text tweets from the same users and date-matched video/image tweets and their accompanying text. Audio tweets were significantly less toxic than both text tweets and text that accompanied the audio tweet, as well as significantly lower sentiment than their accompanying text. The topics and word counts of audio, text and video/image tweets also differed. These findings are then used to derive design implications for audio and conversational agent interaction. This research contributes preliminary insights about audio social media messages that may help researchers and designers of audio- and agent-based interaction better understand and design for different media formats.","PeriodicalId":179256,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Media Format Matter? Investigating the Toxicity, Sentiment and Topic of Audio Versus Text Social Media Messages\",\"authors\":\"Jamy J. Li, Karen Penaranda Valdivia\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3527188.3561927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Audio messaging and voice-based interactions are growing in popularity. Lexical features of a manually-curated dataset of real-world audio tweets, as well as text and video/image tweets from the same user accounts, are analyzed to explore how user-generated audio differs from text. The toxicity, sentiment, topic and length of audio tweet transcripts are compared with their accompanying text, date-matched text tweets from the same users and date-matched video/image tweets and their accompanying text. Audio tweets were significantly less toxic than both text tweets and text that accompanied the audio tweet, as well as significantly lower sentiment than their accompanying text. The topics and word counts of audio, text and video/image tweets also differed. These findings are then used to derive design implications for audio and conversational agent interaction. This research contributes preliminary insights about audio social media messages that may help researchers and designers of audio- and agent-based interaction better understand and design for different media formats.\",\"PeriodicalId\":179256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3527188.3561927\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3527188.3561927","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

音频信息和基于语音的交互越来越受欢迎。本文分析了一个人工整理的真实世界音频推文数据集的词汇特征,以及来自同一用户账户的文本和视频/图像推文,以探索用户生成的音频与文本的不同之处。将音频tweet文本的毒性、情绪、主题和长度与其附带的文本、来自同一用户的日期匹配的文本tweet以及日期匹配的视频/图像tweet及其附带的文本进行比较。音频推文的毒性明显低于文本推文和附带音频推文的文本,情绪也明显低于附带文本。音频、文本和视频/图像推文的主题和字数也有所不同。这些发现随后被用于推导音频和会话代理交互的设计含义。本研究提供了关于音频社交媒体信息的初步见解,可以帮助音频和基于代理的交互的研究人员和设计师更好地理解和设计不同的媒体格式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does Media Format Matter? Investigating the Toxicity, Sentiment and Topic of Audio Versus Text Social Media Messages
Audio messaging and voice-based interactions are growing in popularity. Lexical features of a manually-curated dataset of real-world audio tweets, as well as text and video/image tweets from the same user accounts, are analyzed to explore how user-generated audio differs from text. The toxicity, sentiment, topic and length of audio tweet transcripts are compared with their accompanying text, date-matched text tweets from the same users and date-matched video/image tweets and their accompanying text. Audio tweets were significantly less toxic than both text tweets and text that accompanied the audio tweet, as well as significantly lower sentiment than their accompanying text. The topics and word counts of audio, text and video/image tweets also differed. These findings are then used to derive design implications for audio and conversational agent interaction. This research contributes preliminary insights about audio social media messages that may help researchers and designers of audio- and agent-based interaction better understand and design for different media formats.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信