手势的边界:人类手部动作流的朴素分割

IF 1.4 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Ewa Jarmołowicz-Nowikow, Maciej Karpiński
{"title":"手势的边界:人类手部动作流的朴素分割","authors":"Ewa Jarmołowicz-Nowikow,&nbsp;Maciej Karpiński","doi":"10.1016/j.langcom.2025.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Naïve observers and researchers alike segment behavior into manageable units for analysis; yet, the nature and application of these units vary. This study examines differences in gesture segmentation between naïve observers and experts, as well as variability among naïve observers. We review a range of gesture definitions and segmentation cues, emphasizing the distinctions between perceiving gestures in interpersonal interactions and identifying them in video recordings, whether by trained or untrained annotators. In our empirical study, naïve observers annotated gestures and their prominent phases under two conditions: video-only (“silence”) and video with audio (“speech”), using ELAN software. The analyzed material consisted of an excerpt from a Member of Parliament's address. The results revealed no significant differences between conditions in the number of identified gestures, total or mean gesture duration. However, we found different levels of inter-annotator agreement in the two conditions and identified certain patterns in how participants distinguished gestures from the continuous flow of hand movements, which differed from expert segmentations. Results showed variability in annotation granularity, with naïve observers marking fewer gestures than experts. Additionally, prominence marking varied: naïve observers differed from experts, especially in the “silence” condition. These findings underscore the nonintuitive nature of gestures as behavioral units and the influence of theoretical training on segmentation practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47575,"journal":{"name":"Language & Communication","volume":"105 ","pages":"Pages 22-36"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Boundaries of gestures: Naive segmentation of the stream of human hand movements\",\"authors\":\"Ewa Jarmołowicz-Nowikow,&nbsp;Maciej Karpiński\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.langcom.2025.09.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Naïve observers and researchers alike segment behavior into manageable units for analysis; yet, the nature and application of these units vary. This study examines differences in gesture segmentation between naïve observers and experts, as well as variability among naïve observers. We review a range of gesture definitions and segmentation cues, emphasizing the distinctions between perceiving gestures in interpersonal interactions and identifying them in video recordings, whether by trained or untrained annotators. In our empirical study, naïve observers annotated gestures and their prominent phases under two conditions: video-only (“silence”) and video with audio (“speech”), using ELAN software. The analyzed material consisted of an excerpt from a Member of Parliament's address. The results revealed no significant differences between conditions in the number of identified gestures, total or mean gesture duration. However, we found different levels of inter-annotator agreement in the two conditions and identified certain patterns in how participants distinguished gestures from the continuous flow of hand movements, which differed from expert segmentations. Results showed variability in annotation granularity, with naïve observers marking fewer gestures than experts. Additionally, prominence marking varied: naïve observers differed from experts, especially in the “silence” condition. These findings underscore the nonintuitive nature of gestures as behavioral units and the influence of theoretical training on segmentation practices.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language & Communication\",\"volume\":\"105 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 22-36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language & Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027153092500076X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language & Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027153092500076X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Naïve观察者和研究人员都将行为分成可管理的单元进行分析;然而,这些单位的性质和应用各不相同。本研究考察了naïve观察者和专家之间手势分割的差异,以及naïve观察者之间的可变性。我们回顾了一系列手势定义和分割线索,强调在人际互动中感知手势和在视频记录中识别手势之间的区别,无论是由训练有素的还是未经训练的注释者。在我们的实证研究中,naïve观察者使用ELAN软件在两种条件下注释手势及其突出阶段:仅视频(“沉默”)和视频音频(“讲话”)。分析的材料包括一名国会议员演讲的摘录。结果显示,在识别手势的数量、总手势时间和平均手势持续时间方面,不同条件之间没有显著差异。然而,我们在两种情况下发现了不同程度的注释者之间的一致性,并确定了参与者如何区分手势和连续的手部运动的某些模式,这与专家分割不同。结果显示了标注粒度的变化,naïve观察者比专家标记的手势更少。此外,突出标记也各不相同:naïve观察者与专家不同,特别是在“沉默”条件下。这些发现强调了手势作为行为单位的非直觉性质以及理论训练对分割实践的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Boundaries of gestures: Naive segmentation of the stream of human hand movements
Naïve observers and researchers alike segment behavior into manageable units for analysis; yet, the nature and application of these units vary. This study examines differences in gesture segmentation between naïve observers and experts, as well as variability among naïve observers. We review a range of gesture definitions and segmentation cues, emphasizing the distinctions between perceiving gestures in interpersonal interactions and identifying them in video recordings, whether by trained or untrained annotators. In our empirical study, naïve observers annotated gestures and their prominent phases under two conditions: video-only (“silence”) and video with audio (“speech”), using ELAN software. The analyzed material consisted of an excerpt from a Member of Parliament's address. The results revealed no significant differences between conditions in the number of identified gestures, total or mean gesture duration. However, we found different levels of inter-annotator agreement in the two conditions and identified certain patterns in how participants distinguished gestures from the continuous flow of hand movements, which differed from expert segmentations. Results showed variability in annotation granularity, with naïve observers marking fewer gestures than experts. Additionally, prominence marking varied: naïve observers differed from experts, especially in the “silence” condition. These findings underscore the nonintuitive nature of gestures as behavioral units and the influence of theoretical training on segmentation practices.
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: This journal is unique in that it provides a forum devoted to the interdisciplinary study of language and communication. The investigation of language and its communicational functions is treated as a concern shared in common by those working in applied linguistics, child development, cultural studies, discourse analysis, intellectual history, legal studies, language evolution, linguistic anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, the politics of language, pragmatics, psychology, rhetoric, semiotics, and sociolinguistics. The journal invites contributions which explore the implications of current research for establishing common theoretical frameworks within which findings from different areas of study may be accommodated and interrelated. By focusing attention on the many ways in which language is integrated with other forms of communicational activity and interactional behaviour, it is intended to encourage approaches to the study of language and communication which are not restricted by existing disciplinary boundaries.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信