Kruyt J, de Jong D, D'Ausilio A, Beňuš Š. Measuring Prosodic Entrainment in Conversation: A Review and Comparison of Different Methods.
J Speech Lang Hear Res 2023;
66:4280-4314. [PMID:
37850877 DOI:
10.1044/2023_jslhr-23-00094]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE
This study aims to further our understanding of prosodic entrainment and its different subtypes by analyzing a single corpus of conversations with 12 different methods and comparing the subsequent results.
METHOD
Entrainment on three fundamental frequency features was analyzed in a subset of recordings from the LUCID corpus (Baker & Hazan, 2011) using the following methods: global proximity, global convergence, local proximity, local convergence, local synchrony (Levitan & Hirschberg, 2011), prediction using linear mixed-effects models (Schweitzer & Lewandowski, 2013), geometric approach (Lehnert-LeHouillier, Terrazas, & Sandoval, 2020), time-aligned moving average (Kousidis et al., 2008), HYBRID method (De Looze et al., 2014), cross-recurrence quantification analysis (e.g., Fusaroli & Tylén, 2016), and windowed, lagged cross-correlation (Boker et al., 2002). We employed entrainment measures on a local timescale (i.e., on adjacent utterances), a global timescale (i.e., over larger time frames), and a time series-based timescale that is larger than adjacent utterances but smaller than entire conversations.
RESULTS
We observed variance in results of different methods.
CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest that each method may measure a slightly different type of entrainment. The complex implications this has for existing and future research are discussed.
Collapse