Turn-taking and Backchannel Prediction with Acoustic and Large Language Model Fusion
We propose an approach for continuous prediction of turn-taking and backchanneling locations in spoken dialogue by fusing a neural acoustic model with a large language model (LLM). Experiments on the Switchboard human-human conversation dataset demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms the baseline models with single modality. We also develop a novel multi-task instruction finetuning strategy to further benefit from LLM-encoded knowledge for understanding the tasks and conversational contexts, leading to additional improvements. Our approach demonstrates the potential of combined LLMs and acoustic models for a more natural and conversational interaction between humans and speech-enabled AI agents.
As one of its most basic capabilities, the system should be able to determine when to take turns naturally and with minimal latency in a dialogue with the user, and without the need for push-to-talk or wakewords. One common solution for turn-taking is to trigger the system’s response after a period of silence based on a predefined threshold [5, 6, 7, 8]. However, this threshold-based method may result in a suboptimal user experience due to lack of naturalness [9, 10]. Another behavior that is important for managing human-human conversations that are a challenge for present-day conversational systems is backchanneling [11, 12]. Backchannels are defined as short utterances expressing acknowledgment or reactions on the part of the listener, without signaling an intent to take a turn, such as “uh-huh”, “oh no” and “right”. They typically occur during the current speaker’s turn and do not necessarily trigger turn-taking [13, 14, 11].
Going back to conversation analysis in linguistic pragmatics [15], there is a long history of descriptive and computational research trying to capture turn-taking and backchanneling cues in multiple modalities. In the acoustic domain, prosodic features such as duration, pitch, voice quality and intensity have been shown to have high correlation with turn-taking and backchannel locations [16, 11, 17, 9].
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Can AI chatbots provide mental health support without reinforcing harmful beliefs?- What harms might chatbots cause through stigma expression and delusion reinforcement?
- Do therapeutic chatbots adequately detect crisis situations and safety risks?
- How should therapeutic chatbots optimize for presence instead of technique?
- Should chatbots be designed as therapist support tools rather than replacements?
- Can perceived understanding from a chatbot exist alongside feeling alone?
- What reward signals would better align chatbots with actual therapeutic practice?
- Does the same linguistic signal work across patient speech, LLM text, and diary entries?
- What makes feeling heard the core mechanism for loneliness relief?
- Do users grieve AI companions the way they mourn human relationships?
- Can an AI companion reduce loneliness as well as people?
- Do AI companions reduce loneliness compared to talking with another person?
- Does regular interaction with AI companions actually reduce overall human well-being?
- Does replacing human conversation with AI actually reduce loneliness in teens?
- What happens to well-being when teens substitute AI for in-person friendships?
- Has AI companion use changed teen mental health outcomes over time?
- Why does anthropomorphic voice sometimes increase loneliness rather than attachment?