The effect of collaborative triadic conversations in noise on decision-making in a general-knowledge task (2024)

The description in this readme is largely quoted or adapted from Örnolfsson et al. (2024)*. For questions or inquiries, please contact Ingvi Örnolfsson ([e-mail], ORCID: 0000-0002-2222-0739).AbstractThis study investigated how background noise influenced group decision-making in triadic interactions. Ten triads of normal-hearing participants were recruited. Initially, each participant responded to a series of binary general knowledge questions and provided a confidence rating along with their response. Subsequently, the questions were discussed in groups of three in two distinct conditions; a high-intensity background noise condition (78 dB, referred to as the ‘noisy’ condition’) or a low-intensity condition (48dB, referred to as the ‘quiet’ condition). Finally, participants individually answered the same questions again.MethodsThe study comprised 30 participants organized into groups of ten triads. All participants, aged between 20 and 35 years, were native Danish speakers with self-reported normal-hearing status. Except for two pairs, participants were unfamiliar with each other prior to the experiment. The experiment was conducted in Danish and took approximately 2.5 hours.The participants were seated in an equilateral triangle configuration, facing the other two group members, as illustrated in Figure 1b. The distance between participants was approximately 1.5 m. They wore eye-tracking glasses capturing point-of-view footage, eye-gaze data, and pupil dilation. Additionally, three microphones were utilized, including a pair of in-ear binaural microphones and a cheek-mounted microphone; however, data from these devices were not analyzed in this study.The group was surrounded by eight loudspeakers (Dynaudio BM6P), arranged in a ring of radius 2.4 m. Each loudspeaker played a separate Danish monologue (Ahrens & Lund, 2022), resulting in a spatially distributed multi-talker masker. The monologues lasted approximately 90 seconds each and were looped for the duration of the conversation. The loudspeakers were driven by a sonible d:24 amplifier. The masker was presented at sound pressure levels (SPLs) of either 48 dB or 78 dB, corresponding to the quiet and the noisy condition, respectively. The simultaneous presentation of multiple masking speech sources rendered them individually unintelligible in both conditions. To eliminate visual distractions, a circular black curtain entirely enclosed the participant area.The initial task for the participants involved responding individually to a series of binary general-knowledge questions categorized into three topics: Hollywood movies (identifying the oldest of two movies), Copenhagen landmarks (determining which of two locations is closest to the city center), and European countries (determining which of two countries has the most inhabitants). Each topic comprised two lists of 28 questions, one for each acoustic noise condition. Consequently, each list contained 28 trials, formulated by employing all unique binary questions from the eight items associated with that topic (e.g., eight Hollywood movies). Before the primary experiment, the group underwent a brief trial round on a different topic not used in the study. This allowed participants to familiarize themselves with the task, the technical interface, and with each other, thus overcoming any initial awkwardness in their conversations.Questions were presented on a touch-screen tablet, showing a visual illustration of the two options along with accompanying labels. The participants were instructed to select an option and provide a confidence level, expressed as a percentage between 50% and 100%, with 50% indicating no preference for either option, while 100% meant absolute certainty in the decision (Figure 1a). They were asked to interpret the scale as indicating their estimated probability of having answered the question correctly, i.e. a metacognitive judgment.After the initial set of 28 questions, a conversation round followed, during which the participants discussed their answers with the other group members. Collaborative problem-solving was encouraged, emphasizing the importance of improving the performance of all group members, not just oneself. Each participant was given a sheet displaying the eight items from the preceding question round during the conversation (see Figure 1b). Once a 10-minute time limit was reached or the conversation concluded naturally, participants individually answered the same 28 questions again (see Figure 1c). This process was repeated six times, once for each of the three topics and in each of the two noise conditions. The order of topics and conditions was randomized between groups, ensuring that the same topic did not appear consecutively. A brief break was incorporated after the third question round.*Örnolfsson, I., Ahrens, A., Dau, T., and May, T. The effect of collaborative triadic conversations in noise on decision-making in a general-knowledge task" (2024), DOI: ______________________.

本研究的描述主要摘录或改编自Örnolfsson等（2024）的研究成果。如有疑问或咨询，请联系Ingvi Örnolfsson（[e-mail]，ORCID: 0000-0002-2222-0739）。摘要：本研究探讨了背景噪声如何影响三重交互中的群体决策。招募了十组听力正常的参与者。首先，每位参与者回答了一系列二元一般知识问题，并对其回答提供了置信度评分。随后，在两种不同的条件下，三人的小组对问题进行了讨论；一种为高强度背景噪声条件（78分贝，称为‘嘈杂’条件）或低强度条件（48分贝，称为‘安静’条件）。最后，参与者再次单独回答了相同的问题。方法：本研究由30名参与者组成，分为十组三重小组。所有参与者年龄在20至35岁之间，均为丹麦本土人，自述听力正常。除两对参与者外，实验前参与者之间互不相识。实验使用丹麦语进行，大约耗时2.5小时。参与者以等边三角形配置就座，面向其他两名小组成员，如图1b所示。参与者之间的距离约为1.5米。他们佩戴了追踪视角、眼动数据和瞳孔扩张的眼动眼镜，此外还使用了三个麦克风，包括一副入耳双耳麦克风和一块贴在脸颊上的麦克风；然而，这些设备的数据并未在本研究中进行分析。小组周围环绕着八个扬声器（Dynaudio BM6P），呈半径2.4米的环形排列。每个扬声器播放一段丹麦独白（Ahrens & Lund，2022），从而形成空间分布的多说话者掩蔽。独白时长约为90秒，在对话期间循环播放。扬声器由sonible d:24放大器驱动。掩蔽器以48分贝或78分贝的声压级（SPLs）呈现，分别对应安静和嘈杂条件。多掩蔽语音源的同步呈现使它们在两种条件下均无法单独辨识。为消除视觉干扰，参与者区域被一个全黑的圆形帘幕完全包围。参与者的初始任务包括单独回答一系列二元一般知识问题，这些问题分为三个主题：好莱坞电影（识别两部电影中较老的一部）、哥本哈根地标（确定两个地点中哪一个离市中心更近）和欧洲国家（确定两个国家中哪一个人口最多）。每个主题包含两个列表，每个列表对应一个声学噪声条件，共28个问题。因此，每个列表包含28个试验，通过使用与该主题相关的八项相关唯一二元问题的所有组合而成（例如，八部好莱坞电影）。在主要实验之前，小组在未用于研究的不同主题上进行了简短的试练轮。这使得参与者熟悉了任务、技术界面以及彼此，从而克服了谈话初期的尴尬。问题在触摸屏平板电脑上呈现，显示了两个选项的视觉插图以及相应的标签。参与者被要求选择一个选项并提供一个置信水平，以百分比形式表达，介于50%至100%之间，50%表示对两个选项没有偏好，而100%则表示对决定的绝对确定性（见图1a）。他们被要求将量表解释为表示他们估计回答问题正确的概率，即元认知判断。在最初的28个问题之后，紧接着是一轮对话，在此期间，参与者与其他小组成员讨论了他们的答案。鼓励协作问题解决，强调提高所有小组成员的表现，而不仅仅是自己的重要性。每个参与者在对话期间都获得了一张显示前一轮问题中八个项目的表格（见图1b）。一旦达到10分钟的时间限制或对话自然结束，参与者再次单独回答相同的28个问题（见图1c）。此过程重复了六次，每个主题和每个噪声条件各进行一次。主题和条件的顺序在小组之间随机化，确保同一主题不会连续出现。在第三次问题轮之后，安排了短暂的休息。Örnolfsson, I., Ahrens, A., Dau, T., and May, T. The effect of collaborative triadic conversations in noise on decision-making in a general-knowledge task (2024), DOI: ______________________.