Acoustic-Prosodic and Lexical Correlates of Charismatic .ppt

1、9/5/2005,1,Acoustic/Prosodic and Lexical Correlates of Charismatic Speech,Andrew Rosenberg & Julia Hirschberg Columbia University Interspeech 2005 - Lisbon,9/5/2005,2,Why study charismatic speech?,Construction of a feedback system for public speakers, (politicians, academic instructors, etc.) Identi

2、fication of potential charismatic leaders Automatic generation of “charismatic-like” speech,9/5/2005,3,What is charisma?,Not “closed door” or one-on-one charisma. Rather, political (or religious) charisma The ability to attract, and retain followers by virtue of personality as opposed to tradition o

3、r laws. (Weber) E.g. Ghandi, Hitler, Castro. Charismatic speech: Speech that encourages listeners to perceive the speaker as “charismatic”.,9/5/2005,4,Goals of this study,Determine to what degree subjects agree as to the charisma of a speaker. Determine the existence and identify a functional defini

4、tion of charisma. Identify acoustic/prosodic and lexical properties of speech that communicate charisma,9/5/2005,5,Study Description,Subjects: Friends and colleagues, no incentive Interface: Presentation of 45 short speech segments (2-30secs) via a web form Dependent variables: 5-point Likert scale

5、ratings of agreement on 26 statements about the speaker. Duration: avg. 1.5 hrs, min 45m, max 3hrs,9/5/2005,6,Study Description,Interface http:/www1.cs.columbia.edu/amaxwell/survey/,9/5/2005,7,Study Description,Materials: 45 tokens of American political speech from late 03 and early 04 Speakers: 9 C

6、andidates for Democratic Partys nomination for President Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, Moseley Braun, Sharpton Topics: Postwar Iraq, Healthcare, Bushs Tax plan, Reason for Running, Content-Neutral,9/5/2005,8,How much do subjects agree with one another?,Using the weighte

7、d kappa statistic with quadratic weighting, mean = 0.213 Do subjects agree about what is charismatic? = 0.224 (8th) Inter-subject agreement by token No significant differences across all tokens Inter-subject agreement by statement The individual statements demonstrate significantly different agreeme

8、nts,9/5/2005,9,What do subjects mean by “charismatic”?,Using the kappa statistic determined which pairs of statements were most closely correlated with the charismatic statement.,9/5/2005,10,Does the identity of the speaker affect judgments of charisma?,There is a significant difference between spea

9、kers (p=1.75e-2) Most charismatic Rep. Edwards (3.73) Rev. Sharpton (3.40) Gov. Dean (3.32) Least charismatic Sen. Lieberman (2.38) Rep. Kucinich (2.73) Rep. Gephardt (2.77),9/5/2005,11,Does the genre or topic of speech affect judgments of charisma?,The tokens were taken from debates, interviews, st

10、ump speeches, and a campaign ad Stump speeches were the most charismatic. (3.28) Interviews the least. (2.90) Topic does not affect ratings of charisma.,9/5/2005,12,Does recognizing a speaker affect judgments of charisma?,Subjects were asked to identify which, if any, speakers they recognized at the

11、 end of the study. Subjects rated recognized speakers (3.28) significantly more charismatic than those they did not (2.99).,9/5/2005,13,What makes speech charismatic? Acoustic/Prosodic and Lexical Properties Examined,Duration (secs) Min, max, mean, stdev F0 Raw and normalized by speaker Min, max, me

12、an, stdev intensity Number of intonational, intermediate, and internal phrases Mean and stdev of normalized F0 and intensity across phrases,Speaking rate (syls/sec) Length (words, syllables) 1st, 2nd, 3rd person pronoun density Function to content word ratio Mean syllables/word Mean words per interm

13、ediate and intonational phrase,9/5/2005,14,What makes speech charismatic? Properties showing positive correlation with charisma,More Content Length in secs, words, syllables, and phrases Higher and more dynamic raw F0 Min, max, mean, std. dev. of F0 over male speakers Greater intensity Mean intensit

14、y Higher in a speakers pitch range Mean normalized F0,9/5/2005,15,Faster speaking rate Syllables per second Greater variation of F0 and intensity across phrases Std. dev. of normalized phrase F0 and intensity The use of more first person pronouns First person pronoun density The use of polysyllabic

15、words Lexical complexity (mean syllables per word),9/5/2005,16,Conclusions,There is substantial individual differences in subject perception of charisma. There exists a common, functional definition of charisma. Namely, “charismatic is enthusiastic, charming, convincing, persuasive, powerful and not

16、 boring” Broadly, dynamic speech loud, high in the pitch range using first person pronouns is associated with charisma.,9/5/2005,17,Future Research,Isolate the lexical component of speech to determine the relative influences of what is said and how it is said. Adjust acoustic/prosodic features to generate more/less charismatic speech Study communication of charisma in other languages, specifically Palestinian Arabic.,