A growing literature on speech interruptions describes how people interrupt one another with speech, but these behaviours have not yet been implemented in the design of artificial agents which interrupt. Perceptions of a prototype proactive speech agent which adapts its speech to both urgency and to the difficulty of the ongoing task it interrupts are compared against perceptions of a static proactive agent which does not. The study hypothesises that adaptive proactive speech modelled on human speech interruptions will lead to partner models which consider the proactive agent as a stronger conversational partner than a static agent, and that interruptions initiated by an adaptive agent will be judged as better timed and more appropriately asked. These hypotheses are all rejected however, as quantitative analysis reveals that participants view the adaptive agent as a poorer dialogue partner than the static agent and as less appropriate in the style it interrupts. Qualitative analysis sheds light on the source of this surprising finding, as participants see the adaptive agent as less socially appropriate and as less consistent in its interactions than the static agent.

翻译：关于语音中断的研究逐渐增多，描述了人们如何通过语音相互打断，但这些行为尚未被应用于会打断对话的人工代理设计。本研究比较了两种原型主动语音代理的感知效果：一种能根据紧急程度和正在进行的任务难度调整其语音（自适应代理），另一种则不具备此能力（静态代理）。研究假设，基于人类语音中断模式的自适应主动语音将促使用户形成更强的合作伙伴模型，认为自适应代理比静态代理是更优的对话伙伴，且自适应代理发起的打断在时机和恰当性上会获得更高评价。然而，所有假设均被拒绝——定量分析显示，参与者认为自适应代理作为对话伙伴的表现劣于静态代理，且其打断风格更不恰当。定性分析揭示了这一意外结果的根源：参与者认为自适应代理在社交得体性和交互一致性上均不如静态代理。