Doing Virtual Companionship with Alexa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v7i3.150089Keywords:
companions, conversation analysis, discoursive psychology, dementia, virtual assistantsAbstract
Technologists often claim that virtual assistants, e.g., smart speakers, can offer 'smart companionship for independent older people'. However, the concept of companionship manifested by such technologies is rarely explained further. Studies of virtual assistants as assistive technologies have tended to conceptualise companionship as a 'special form of friendship' or as a way of strengthening 'psychological wellbeing' and 'emotional resilience'. While these abstractions can be measured using psychological indices or self-report, they are not necessarily informative about how 'virtual companionship' may be performed in everyday interaction. This case study focuses on how a virtual assistant is used by a person living with dementia and asks to what extent it takes on a role recognizable, from interactional studies, as 'doing companionship'. We draw on naturalistic video data featuring a person living with dementia in her own home using a smart speaker. Our results show how actions such as complaints about and blamings directed towards the device are achieved through shifts of ‘footing’ between turns that are ostensibly ‘talk to oneself’ and turns designed to occasion a response. Our findings have implications for the design, feasibility, and ethics of virtual assistants as companions, and for our understanding of the embedded ontological assumptions, interactive participation frameworks, and conversational roles involved in doing companionship with machines.
References
Aarsand, P. A., & Aronsson, K. (2009). Response cries and other gaming moves—Building intersubjectivity in gaming. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1557-1575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.014
Alač, M., Gluzman, Y., Aflatoun, T., Bari, A., Jing, B., & Mozqueda, G. (2020). How everyday interactions with digital voice assistants resist a return to the individual. Evental Aesthetics, 9(1), 51.
Albert, S., & Hamann, M. (2021, July). Putting wake words to bed: We speak wake words with systematically varied prosody, but CUIs don't listen. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (pp. 1-5).
Albert, S., Hamann, M., & Stokoe, E. (2023). Conversational User Interfaces in Smart Homecare Interactions: A Conversation Analytic Case Study. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571884.3597140
Amazon Echo (Director). (2019). Amazon Echo & Alexa—Morning Ritual (60s). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHsO-rXrLLo
Amrhein, A., Cyra, K., & Pitsch, K. (2016). Processes of reminding and requesting in supporting people with special needs. Human practices as basis for modeling a virtual assistant. Proceedings 1st ECAI Workshop on Ethics in the Design of Intelligent Agents. The Hague, The Netherlands (pp. 18-23).
Antaki, C. (Ed.). (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. Springer.
Antaki, C., & Chinn, D. (2019). Companions' dilemma of intervention when they mediate between patients with intellectual disabilities and health staff. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(11), 2024-2030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.020
Baldwin, C. (2005). Technology, dementia and ethics: rethinking the issues. Disability studies quarterly, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v25i3.583
Bauman, Z. (1973). On the philosophical status of ethnomethodology. The Sociological Review, 21(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v25i3.583
BBC News, (2018, April 25), Amazon Alexa to reward kids who say: ‘Please’. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43897516
Begum, M., Wang, R., Huq, R., & Mihailidis, A. (2013). Performance of daily activities by older adults with dementia: The role of an assistive robot. 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650405
Berger, I., Viney, R., & Rae, J. P. (2016). Do continuing states of incipient talk exist?. Journal of Pragmatics, 91, 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.009
Blair, J., & Abdullah, S. (2019). Understanding the Needs and Challenges of Using Conversational Agents for Deaf Older Adults. Companion Publication of the 2019 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311957.3359487
Bosisio, F., & Jones, L. (2023). Consensual and non-consensual asymmetry in talk between people with dementia and their companions: Presenter (s): Anca-Cristina Sterie, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Patient Education and Counseling, 109, 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2022.10.040
Broekens, J., Heerink, M., & Rosendal, H. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: A review. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 94–103.
Chen, S. C., Moyle, W., Jones, C., & Petsky, H. (2020). A social robot intervention on depression, loneliness, and quality of life for Taiwanese older adults in long-term care. International Psychogeriatrics, 32(8), 981-991. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220000459
Clayman, S. E. (1995). The dialectic of ethnomethodology. Semiotica, 107(1/2), 105–123.
Cooper, S., Di Fava, A., Vivas, C., Marchionni, L., & Ferro, F. (2020). ARI: The social assistive robot and companion. 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 745–751. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223470
Coulter, J., & Parsons, E. D. (1990). The praxiology of perception: Visual orientations and practical action. Inquiry, 33(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201749008602223
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613
Demiris, G., Rantz, M., Aud, M., Marek, K., Tyrer, H., Skubic, M., & Hussam, A. (2004). Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: A pilot study. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 29(2), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639230410001684387
Demiris, G., Thompson, H. J., Lazar, A., & Lin, S.-Y. (2016). Evaluation of a digital companion for older adults with mild cognitive impairment. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2016, 496. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5333281/
Doehring, A. H. (2018). Three-party interactions between neurologists, patients and their companions in the seizure clinic [PhD Thesis, Loughborough University]. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ann-Doehring/publication/330798535_Three-party_interactions_between_neurologists_patients_and_their_companions_in_the_seizure_clinic/links/5c6ffc2c458515831f6675c2/Three-party-interactions-between-neurologists-patients-and-their-companions-in-the-seizure-clinic.pdf
Ekberg, K., Hickson, L., & Land, C. (2020). Practices of negotiating responsibility for troubles in interaction involving people with hearing impairment. In Atypical Interaction: The Impact of Communicative Impairments within Everyday Talk. (pp. 409–433). Palgrave Macmilan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28799-3_14
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
Evans, J., Brown, M., Coughlan, T., Lawson, G., & Craven, M. P. (2015). A Systematic Review of Dementia Focused Assistive Technology. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction: Interaction Technologies (Vol. 9170, pp. 406–417). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20916-6_38
Fischer, J. E., Reeves, S., Porcheron, M., & Sikveland, R. O. (2019). Progressivity for voice interface design. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342788
Fischer, K. (2021). Tracking anthropomorphizing behavior in human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 11(1), 4:1-4:28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442677
Garfinkel, H., & Wieder, D. L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 175–206). Sage.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Pantheon.
Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 787-815. https://doi.org/10.2307/413235
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics, 24, 16.
Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2018). Embodied family choreography: Practices of control, care, and mundane creativity. Routledge.
Graham, V., & Tuffin, K. (2004). Retirement villages: Companionship, privacy and security. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 23(4), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2004.00047.x
Heath, C., & vom Lehn, D. (2013). Interactivity and Collaboration: New forms of participation in museums, galleries and science centres. In Museums in a digital age (pp. 266–280). Routledge.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Sage Publications.
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. (2017). Transcribing for social research. SAGE Publications Ltd https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781473920460
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp.299-345). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2017). Online commentary in primary care and emergency room settings. Acute Medicine & Surgery, 4(1), 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ams2.229
Heritage, J., & Drew, P. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
Hill, R., Betts, L. R., & Gardner, S. E. (2015). Older adults’ experiences and perceptions of digital technology:(Dis) empowerment, wellbeing, and inclusion. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 415-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.062
Hoey, E. M. (2017). Lapse organization in interaction [PhD Thesis, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Radbound University, Nijmegen]. http://bit.ly/hoey2017
Hofstetter, E. (2020). Nonlexical “moans”: Response cries in board game interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 42-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712964
Höhn, S. (2019). Artificial companion for second language conversation. Springer International Publishing.
Huma, B., Alexander, M., Stokoe, E., & Tileaga, C. (2020). Introduction to special issue on discursive psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1729910
Ienca, M., Fabrice, J., Elger, B., Caon, M., Pappagalloe, A., Kressig, R., & Wangmo, T. (2017). Intelligent assistive technology for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias: A systematic review. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 56(4), 1301–1340. https://doi.org/10.3233/ JAD-161037
Jefferson, G. (1988). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ’standard maximum’ silence of approximately one second in conversation. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective. (pp. 166–196). Multilingual Matters.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner, (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. (pp. 13- 31). John Benjamins.
Jung, J., Murray-Rust, D. S., Gadiraju, U., & Bozzon, A. (2023). Gender Choices of Conversational Agent: How Today’s Practice Can Shape Tomorrow’s Values. 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480
Kramer, M., Yaghoubzadeh, R., Kopp, S., & Pitsch, K. (2013). A conversational virtual human as autonomous assistant for elderly and cognitively impaired users? Social acceptability and design considerations. https://dl.gi.de/items/5fc52dbc-c38e-48c2-b2d2-74a349fbdce0
Krummheuer, A. L., Rehm, M., & Rodil, K. (2020). Triadic Human-Robot Interaction. Distributed Agency and Memory in Robot Assisted Interactions. Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1145/3371382.3378269
Lazar, A., Thompson, H. J., Piper, A. M., & Demiris, G. (2016). Rethinking the Design of Robotic Pets for Older Adults. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901811
Lee, J.-E. R., & Nass, C. I. (2010). Trust in computers: The computers-are-social-actors (CASA) paradigm and trustworthiness perception in human-computer communication. In Trust and technology in a ubiquitous modern environment: Theoretical and methodological perspectives (pp. 1–15). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/trust-computers-computers-social-actors/42897
Lopatovska, I., & Williams, H. (2018). Personification of the Amazon Alexa: BFF or a Mindless Companion. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval - CHIIR ’18, 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1145/3176349.3176868
MacMartin, C., Coe, J. B., & Adams, C. L. (2014). Treating distressed animals as participants: I know responses in veterinarians’ pet-directed talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.900219
Mavrina, L., Szczuka, J., Strathmann, C., Bohnenkamp, L. M., Krämer, N., & Kopp, S. (2022). “Alexa, You’re Really Stupid”: A longitudinal field study on communication breakdowns between family members and a voice assistant. Frontiers in Computer Science, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.791704
McTear, M., Callejas, Z., & Griol, D. (2016). The conversational interface. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32967-3
Meiland, F., Innes, A., Mountain, G., Robinson, L., van der Roest, H., García-Casal, J. A., ... & Franco-Martin, M. (2017). Technologies to support community-dwelling persons with dementia: a position paper on issues regarding development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics. JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.2196/rehab.6376
Mondada, L. (2008). Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: Videotaping institutional telephone calls. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-9.3.1161
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Mordoch, E., Osterreicher, A., Guse, L., Roger, K., & Thompson, G. (2013). Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: A literature review. Maturitas, 74(1), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.10.015
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
O’Brien, K., Liggett, A., Ramirez-Zohfeld, V., Sunkara, P., & Lindquist, L. A. (2020). Voice- controlled intelligent personal assistants to support aging in place. American Geriatrics Society, 68(1), 176-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16217
Okada, Y. (2010). Role-play in oral proficiency interviews: Interactive footing and interactional competencies. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1647-1668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.002
Park, S., & Kim, B. (2022). The impact of everyday AI-based smart speaker use on the well-being of older adults living alone. Technology in Society, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102133
Pehkonen, S. (2020). Response cries inviting an alignment: Finnish huh huh. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712965
Pelikan, H. R. M., & Broth, M. (2016). Why that Nao? Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858478
Pelikan, H. R. M., Broth, M., & Keevallik, L. (2020). ‘Are You Sad, Cozmo?’: How humans make sense of a home robot’s emotion displays. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374814
Pelikan, H., & Hofstetter, E. (2023). Managing delays in human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 30(4), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3569890
Pelikan, H., Broth, M., & Keevallik, L. (2022). When a robot comes to life: The interactional achievement of agency as a transient phenomenon. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 5(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v5i3.129915
Percy Campbell, J. (2023). Aging in place with Google and Amazon smart speakers: Privacy and surveillance implications for older adults [PhD Thesis]. http://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/15095
Pino, M., & Land, V. (2022). How companions speak on patients’ behalf without undermining their autonomy: Findings from a conversation analytic study of palliative care consultations. Sociology of Health & Illness, 44(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13427
Pino, M., Doehring, A., & Parry, R. (2021). Practitioners’ dilemmas and strategies in decision-making conversations where patients and companions take divergent positions on a healthcare measure: An observational study using conversation analysis. Health Communication, 36(14), 2010–2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1813952
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152–163). Cambridge University Press.
Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., & Reeves, S. (2021). Pulling back the curtain on the Wizards of Oz. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432942
Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., Reeves, S., & Sharples, S. (2018). Voice interfaces in everyday life. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174214
Potter, J. (2012). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In H. Cooper (Eds), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology: Vol. 2. Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological (pp. 111-130). American Psychological Association Press.
Pradhan, A., Findlater, L., & Lazar, A. (2019). ‘Phantom Friend’ or ‘Just a Box with Information’: Personification and ontological categorization of smart speaker-based voice assistants by older adults. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359316
Pradhan, A., Lazar, A., & Findlater, L. (2020). Use of intelligent voice assistants by older adults with low technology use. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 27(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373759
Pradhan, A., Mehta, K., & Findlater, L. (2018). ‘Accessibility came by accident’: Use of voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants by people with disabilities. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174033
Ramadan, Z., F. Farah, M., & El Essrawi, L. (2021). From Amazon.com to Amazon.love: How Alexa is redefining companionship and interdependence for people with special needs. Psychology & Marketing, 38(4), 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21441
Reeves, S., Fischer, J. E., Porcheron, M., & Sikveland, R. (2019). Learning how to talk: Co-producing action with and around voice agents. https://dl.gi.de/items/f047d3d7-6534-47de-809e-3a3aaf781fb9
Riddoch, K. A. (2021). Human—Robot companionship: A mixed-methods investigation [PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow]. https://theses.gla.ac.uk/82858/
Ring, L., Barry, B., Totzke, K., & Bickmore, T. (2013). Addressing loneliness and isolation in older adults: Proactive affective agents provide better support. Proceedings of the 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2013.17
Robson, C., Drew, P., & Reuber, M. (2016). The role of companions in outpatient seizure clinic interactions: A pilot study. Epilepsy & Behavior, 60, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.04.010
Roettgers, J. (2019). How Alexa got her personality. Retrieved July 28, 2020, from https://variety.com/ 2019/digital/news/alexa-personality-amazon-echo-1203236019/
Šabanović, S., Bennett, C. C., Chang, W.-L., & Huber, L. (2013). PARO robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 1–6. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6650427/
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Schwär, H., & Moynihan, R. (2018). There's a clever psychological reason why: Amazon gave Alexa a female voice. https://www.businessinsider.com/ther es-psychological-reason-why-amazon-gave-alexa-a-female-voice-2018-9
Shead, S. (2017). REPORT: 1 in 4 people have fantasised about Alexa, Siri, and other AI assistants. https://www.businessinsider.com/jwt-speak-easy-study-people-fantasised-about-alexa-2017-4
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
Stokoe, E. (2021). Conversations, and how we end them. Nature Publishing Group UK London.
Stokoe, E., Sikveland, R. O., Albert, S., Hamann, M., & Housley, W. (2020). Can humans simulate talking like other humans? Comparing simulated clients to real customers in service inquiries. Discourse Studies, 22(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619887537
Stommel, W. J. P., & Stommel, M. W. J. (2021). Participation of companions in video-mediated medical consultations: A microanalysis. In J. Meredith, D. Giles, & W. Stommel (Eds.), Analysing Digital Interaction (pp. 177–203). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64922-7_9
Sutton, S. J. (2020). Gender ambiguous, not genderless: Designing gender in voice user interfaces (VUIs) with sensitivity. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3405755.3406123
Tong, Y., Wang, F., & Wang, W. (2022). Fairies in the box: Children’s perception and interaction towards voice assistants. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1273814
Tuncer, S., Licoppe, C., Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2023). Recipient design in human–robot interaction: The emergent assessment of a robot’s competence. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01608-7
Turk, V. (2016). Home invasion. New Scientist, 232(3104), 16–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(16)32318-1
Turner-Lee, N. (2019). Can emerging technologies buffer the cost of in-home care in rural America?. Generations, 43(2), 88-93.
van Burgsteden, L. (2023). Next-turn proof procedure. In A. Gubina, E. M. Hoey & C.W. Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SY53W
Weinstein, J. N. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Have you met your new friends; Siri, Cortona, Alexa, Dot, Spot, and Puck. Spine, 44(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002913
Woods, H. S. (2018). Asking more of Siri and Alexa: Feminine persona in service of surveillance capitalism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 35(4), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2018.1488082
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. Sage.
Wright, J. (2021). The alexafication of adult social care: virtual assistants and the changing role of local government in England. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 812. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020812
Wu, Y., Porcheron, M., Doyle, P., Edwards, J., Rough, D., Cooney, O., Bleakley, A., Clark, L., & Cowan, B. (2022). Comparing command construction in native and non-native speaker IPA interaction through conversation analysis. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543829.3543839
Yaghoubzadeh, R., Kramer, M., Pitsch, K., & Kopp, S. (2013). Virtual agents as daily assistants for elderly or cognitively impaired people. In R. Aylett, B. Krenn, C. Pelachaud, & H. Shimodaira (Eds.), Intelligent Virtual Agents (Vol. 8108, pp. 79–91). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40415-3_7
Zhu, J., Shi, K., Yang, C., Niu, Y., Zeng, Y., Zhang, N., ... & Chu, C. H. (2022). Ethical issues of smart home‐based elderly care: A scoping review. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(8), 3686-3699. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13521
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
