Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Multichannel Close-Talk - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Detecting All Laughter from All Audio 1 2 3 inactive (don’t decode this channel) 4 Past work has focused on: a subset of laughter (improving recall) isolated laughter loud, clear, unambiguous laughter and/or a subset of audio (improving precision) segmented intervals only active channels K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Brief Comparison with Related Work L / S class. L / ¬L segm. this Aspect [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] work close-talk microphones � � � � � farfield microphones � single channel at-a-time � � � � multi-channel at-a-time � � participant attribution � � � � � only group laughter � only isolated laughter � � � only clear laughter � rely on pre-segmentation � � ? rely on channel exclusion ? � [1] (Truong & van Leeuwen, 2005); [2] (Truong & van Leeuwen, 2007a); [3] (Truong & van Leeuwen, 2007b); [4] (Knox & Mirghafori, 2007); [5] (Kennedy & Ellis, 2004). K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Outline of this Talk 1. Introduction (about to be over) 2. Data 3. Multiparticipant 3-state Vocal Activity Detector 4. Experiments 5. Analysis 6. Conclusions (& Unqualified Recommendations) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary ICSI Meeting Corpus the complete corpus (Janin et al, 2003) 75 naturally occurring meetings longitudinal CTM recordings of several work groups 3-9 instrumented participants per meeting we use a subset of 67 meetings types: Bed (15), Bmr (29), Bro (23) 23 unique participants 3 participants attend both Bmr and Bro 1 participant attends both Bmr and Bed in particular, as elsewhere, TrainSet : 26 Bmr meetings TestSet : 3 Bmr meetings K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Reference Segmentation speech, S forced alignment of words and word fragments available in the ICSI MRDA Corpus (Shriberg et al, 2004) bridge inter-lexeme gaps shorter than 300 ms as in NIST Rich Transcription Meeting Recognition evaluations laughter, L produced semi-automatically (Laskowski & Burger, 2007d) ≥ 99% of laughter markup, as originally transcribed bouts include terminal “recovery” in-/ehxalation, if present augmented with voicing classification, L ≡ L V ∪ L U “laughed speech” (Nwokah et al, 1999) , S ∩ L here, mapped to laughter L each participant can be producing L , S , or neither K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Multiparticipant 3-state Vocal Activity Detector hidden Markov model pruned Viterbi (beam) decoding topology single participant state subspace multiparticipant state space, pruning multiparticipant transition probability model standard MFCC features, plus crosstalk suppression features multiparticipant emission probability model K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Single Participant (SP) State Subspace L (+3) frame step ∆ T = 0 . 1 s L (+3) L (+2) explicit minimum duration L (+4) constraints N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) T S min , T L min , T N � � ≡ T min N ( − 1) min N S min , N L min , N N � � = ∆ T · N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) min S (+1) number of states in 1-participant S (+4) subspace S (+2) each participant can be N S min + N L min + N N N = min S (+3) speaking, S laughing, L in example shown, N = 9 silent, N K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Multiparticipant (MP) State Space for a conversation of K participants, form the Cartesian product of K factors: L (+3) L (+3) L (+3) L (+3) L (+3) L (+3) L (+3) L (+3) L (+2) L (+2) L (+2) L (+2) × × × · · · × L (+4) L (+4) L (+4) L (+4) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) S (+1) S (+1) S (+1) S (+1) S (+4) S (+4) S (+4) S (+4) S (+2) S (+2) S (+2) S (+2) each MP state: K -vector of N SP states S (+3) S (+3) S (+3) S (+3) total number of MP states in topology: N K impose maximum simultaneous vocalization constraints K S max , K L max , K ¬N � � = K max max ie. K L max : max. # participants laughing at the same time K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Transition Probability Model Example, K = 5: � S (2) , N (0) , N (0) , N (0) � at time t , q t = S i = N ( − 2) , N (0) , S (1) , L (1) � � at time t + 1, q t +1 = S j = what is a ij = P ( q t +1 = S j | q t = S i ) ? 1 a ij = 0 if the SP transition from S i to S j for any participant is not licensed by the SP topology 2 otherwise, ML estimate using ngram counts from best flat-start Viterbi path over training corpus 3 NOTE: each participant’s index k in S is arbitrary for all K -symbol permutations/rotations R want P ( S j | S i ) ≡ P ( R · S j | R · S i ) during model training & querying, rotate each q t into a fixed ordering of the N single-participant states K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Observables each of K participants is wearing a close-talk mic (CTM) extract 41 features from every CTM channel log energy + MFCCs ∆s and ∆∆s min and max normalized log energy differences (NLEDs) (Boakye & Stolcke, 2006) 41 · K features per frame may vary from meeting to meeting (as K does) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Emission Probability Model variable feature length vector X = [ X 1 , X 2 , · · · , X K ] train a single-channel GMM (64 components) for S and L for N all and N nearfield then approximate the joint MP emission with K � P ( X | S i ) = P ( X [ k ] | S i [ k ] ) (1) k =1 K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Described Experiments 1 independent versus joint participant decoding 2 sensitivity to minimum duration constraints 3 sensitivity to maximum overlap constraints 4 generalization to other (non- Bmr ) meetings Evaluation: recall (R), precision (P), and unweighted F goal here: L versus ¬L = S ∪ N sanity: S versus ¬S = L ∪ N sanity: V = S ∪ L versus ¬V = N K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Single-participant vs Multiparticipant Decoding for decoding participants independently N all and N farfield both represent nearfield silence N → 3 competing models, rather than 4 for decoding participant jointly, can use either 3 or 4 models V S L Decoding F R P F R P F indep, 3 AM 76.3 90.3 85.0 87.6 80.9 20.4 32.6 joint, 3 AM 78.8 89.7 86.0 87.8 59.2 20.6 30.6 � joint, 4 AM 83.6 90.0 86.7 55.2 79.5 25.1 34.5 1 joint decoding improves precision by reducing potential overlap 2 modeling farfield vocalization on CTMs significantly improves precision for S and L K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Minimum Duration Constraints T min T min = (0 . 1 , 0 . 1 , 0 . 1) T min = (0 . 3 , 0 . 3 , 0 . 3) T min = (0 . 2 , 0 . 4 , 0 . 3) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Minimum Duration Constraints T min L (+1) N (0) S (+1) T min = (0 . 1 , 0 . 1 , 0 . 1) T min = (0 . 3 , 0 . 3 , 0 . 3) T min = (0 . 2 , 0 . 4 , 0 . 3) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Minimum Duration Constraints T min L (+3) L (+1) L (+2) L (+3) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N (0) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+3) S (+1) S (+1) S (+2) S (+2) T min = (0 . 1 , 0 . 1 , 0 . 1) T min = (0 . 3 , 0 . 3 , 0 . 3) T min = (0 . 2 , 0 . 4 , 0 . 3) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Minimum Duration Constraints T min L (+3) L (+3) L (+1) L (+2) L (+3) L (+3) L (+2) L (+4) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N (0) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+3) S (+1) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) S (+1) S (+1) S (+2) S (+4) S (+2) S (+2) T min = (0 . 1 , 0 . 1 , 0 . 1) T min = (0 . 3 , 0 . 3 , 0 . 3) T min = (0 . 2 , 0 . 4 , 0 . 3) S (+3) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Minimum Duration Constraints T min hold maximum overlap constraints fixed, K max = (2 , 3 , 3) V S L T min (s) F R P F R P F (0 . 1 , 0 . 1 , 0 . 1) 78.1 82.3 89.9 86.0 55.9 22.1 31.7 (0 . 3 , 0 . 3 , 0 . 3) 79.5 83.7 90.4 86.9 54.7 24.2 33.6 � (0 . 2 , 0 . 4 , 0 . 3) 79.5 83.6 90.0 86.7 55.2 25.1 34.5 1 increasing all T min from 0.1s to 0.3s improves all F measures 2 allowing T L min > T S min can result in higher F ( L ) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Maximum Overlap Constraints K max K max = (3 , 2 , 3) K max = (2 , 2 , 2) K max = (2 , 2 , 3) K max = (2 , 3 , 3) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Maximum Overlap Constraints K max L (+3) L (+3) ≤ 2 L (+2) K max = (3 , 2 , 3) L (+4) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) ≤ 2 ≥ ( K − 2) S (+1) S (+4 K max = (2 , 2 , 2) K max = (2 , 2 , 3) S (+2) S (+3) K max = (2 , 3 , 3) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Maximum Overlap Constraints K max L (+3) L (+3) L (+3) L (+3) ≤ 2 ≤ 2 L (+2) L (+2) K max = (3 , 2 , 3) L (+4) L (+4) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) ≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≥ ( K − 2) ≥ ( K − 3) S (+1) S (+1) S (+4 S (+4 K max = (2 , 2 , 2) K max = (2 , 2 , 3) S (+2) S (+2) S (+3) S (+3) K max = (2 , 3 , 3) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Maximum Overlap Constraints K max L (+3) L (+3) ≤ 2 L (+2) L (+4) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 1) L (+3) L (+3) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) ≤ 3 ≥ ( K − 3) S (+1) L (+3) L (+3) ≤ 2 ≤ 2 S (+4 L (+2) L (+2) K max = (3 , 2 , 3) S (+2) L (+4) L (+4) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) S (+3) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) ≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≥ ( K − 2) ≥ ( K − 3) S (+1) S (+1) S (+4 S (+4 K max = (2 , 2 , 2) K max = (2 , 2 , 3) S (+2) S (+2) S (+3) S (+3) K max = (2 , 3 , 3) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Maximum Overlap Constraints K max L (+3) L (+3) ≤ 2 L (+2) L (+4) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 1) L (+3) L (+3) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) ≤ 3 ≥ ( K − 3) S (+1) L (+3) L (+3) ≤ 2 ≤ 2 S (+4 L (+2) L (+2) K max = (3 , 2 , 3) S (+2) L (+4) L (+4) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) S (+3) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) L (+3) ≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≥ ( K − 2) ≥ ( K − 3) S (+1) S (+1) L (+3) ≤ 3 S (+4 S (+4 L (+2) K max = (2 , 2 , 2) K max = (2 , 2 , 3) S (+2) S (+2) L (+4) S (+3) S (+3) N ( − 3) N ( − 2) L (+1) N ( − 1) N ( − 1) N (0) S (+2) ≤ 2 ≥ ( K − 3) S (+1) S (+4 K max = (2 , 3 , 3) S (+2) S (+3) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Alternative Maximum Overlap Constraints K max minimum duration constraints fixed, T min = (0 . 2 , 0 . 4 , 0 . 3) V S L K max F R P F R P F (2 , 2 , 2) 81.3 83.3 90.6 86.8 36.9 27.8 31.7 (2 , 2 , 3) 79.9 84.0 89.0 86.4 48.8 24.3 32.4 (3 , 2 , 3) 79.9 84.2 88.6 86.4 49.1 24.6 32.8 � (2 , 3 , 3) 79.5 83.6 90.0 86.7 55.2 25.1 34.5 1 increasing K max generally leads to higher R and lower P 2 increasing K S max from 2 to 3 has negligible impact 3 increasing K L max from 2 to 3 has significant impact ⋆ because a higher proportion of L is produced in overlap K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Generalization to Other Meetings V S L Test data p V ( L ) F R P F R P F train 10.91 80.1 83.4 89.8 86.5 53.0 19.4 28.4 Bmr test 14.94 79.5 83.6 90.0 86.7 55.2 25.1 34.5 (all) 5.94 78.1 81.1 85.6 57.8 11.4 19.0 Bro 90.6 (all) 7.53 75.1 85.7 85.2 10.0 17.0 Bed 84.6 58.7 1 F ( V ): Bmr (train) > Bmr (test) > Bro > Bed Bmr (train) and Bmr (test) have lots of participants in common with Bmr , Bro shares 3 participants, and Bed 1 participant 2 F ( L ) on Bmr (test) higher than on Bmr (train) appears to correlate with p V ( L ), the proportion of vocalization effort spent on laughter this test set is not typical of the corpus K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Confusion Matrix Analysis hypothesized as Σ N L S N 22.9 7.8 716.2 685.4 L 6.5 9.1 1.0 10.4 S 11.0 4.5 79.0 94.4 Σ 702.9 36.6 87.8 827.2 final system on test set (13.8 hours) all quantities in minutes K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Confusion Matrix Analysis hypothesized as Σ N L S N 22.9 7.8 716.2 685.4 L 6.5 9.1 1.0 16.6 S 11.0 4.5 79.0 94.4 Σ 702.9 36.6 87.8 827.2 break down references L ≡ { L ′ U , L ′ V , L ∩ S } L ′ U ≡ L U − L ∩ S : unvoiced laughter less “laughed speech” L ′ V ≡ L V − L ∩ S : voiced laughter less “laughed speech” K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Confusion Matrix Analysis hypothesized as Σ N L S N 22.9 7.8 716.2 685.4 L ′ 2.8 2.4 0.2 5.4 U L ′ 3.6 6.5 0.3 10.4 V L ∩ S 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 S 11.0 4.5 79.0 94.4 Σ 702.9 36.6 87.8 827.2 1 most unvoiced laughter ( L ′ U ) is classified as silence ( N ) 2 most “laughed speech” ( L ∩ S ) is classified as speech ( S ) K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Confusions Between L and S Recall: N L S Σ N 22.9 7.8 716.2 685.4 L ′ 2.8 2.4 0.2 5.4 L S U L ′ L ′ 3.6 0.3 10.4 6.5 8.9 0.5 V L ∩ S 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 L ∩ S 0.2 0.5 S 11.0 4.5 94.4 S 79.0 4.5 79.0 Σ 702.9 36.6 87.8 827.2 looking at L and S only K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Confusions Between L and S Recall: N L S Σ N 22.9 7.8 716.2 685.4 L ′ 2.8 2.4 0.2 5.4 L S U L ′ L ′ 3.6 0.3 10.4 6.5 94.7 5.3 V L ∩ S 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 L ∩ S 28.6 71.4 S 11.0 4.5 94.4 S 79.0 5.4 93.6 Σ 702.9 36.6 87.8 827.2 1 94% of speech is hypothesized as speech 2 95% of laughter (excluding “laughed speech”) is hypothesized as laughter K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Confusions Between L and S Precision: N L S Σ N 22.9 7.8 716.2 685.4 L ′ 2.8 2.4 0.2 5.4 L S U L ′ L ′ 3.6 0.3 10.4 6.5 65.4 0.6 V L ∩ S 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 L ∩ S 1.5 0.6 S 11.0 4.5 94.4 S 79.0 33.1 98.8 Σ 702.9 36.6 87.8 827.2 1 99% of hypothesized speech is speech 2 65% of hypothesized laughter is laughter K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Confusions Between L and N Recall: N L S Σ N 22.9 7.8 716.2 685.4 L ′ 2.8 2.4 0.2 5.4 N L U L ′ 3.6 0.3 10.4 N 6.5 685.4 22.9 V L ′ L ∩ S 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 2.8 2.4 U S 11.0 4.5 94.4 L V 79.0 3.7 6.7 Σ 702.9 36.6 87.8 827.2 looking at L and N only K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Confusions Between L and N Recall: N L S Σ N 22.9 7.8 716.2 685.4 L ′ 2.8 2.4 0.2 5.4 N L U L ′ 3.6 0.3 10.4 N 6.5 96.8 3.2 V L ′ L ∩ S 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 53.9 46.2 U S 11.0 4.5 94.4 L V 79.0 35.6 64.4 Σ 702.9 36.6 87.8 827.2 1 97% of silence is hypothesized as silence 2 64% of voiced laughter (including “laughed speech”) is classified as laughter K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Confusions Between L and N Precision: N L S Σ N 22.9 7.8 716.2 685.4 L ′ 2.8 2.4 0.2 5.4 N L U L ′ 3.6 0.3 10.4 N 6.5 99.1 71.6 V L ′ L ∩ S 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.4 7.5 U S 11.0 4.5 94.4 L V 79.0 0.5 20.9 Σ 702.9 36.6 87.8 827.2 1 99% of hypothesized silence is silence 2 28% of hypothesized laughter is laughter 3 72% of hypothesized laughter is silence K. Laskowski & T. Schultz Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Meetings

Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Multichannel Close-Talk - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Introduction Data Model Experiments Analysis Summary Detection of Laughter-in-Interaction in Multichannel Close-Talk Microphone Recordings of Meetings Kornel Laskowski and Tanja Schultz Cognitive Systems Lab, Universit at Karlsruhe

Certificate in Medical Education 7/21/2017 1 Outline of Lecture Introduction to Laughter

Multichannel number counting Multichannel number counting experiments experiments V.Zhukov

Love, Logic and Laughter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7Z1sDJvjDk Love, Logic and

Improved Bootstrapping Approach in Multichannel Cognitive Radio Ad Hoc Networks The 4th Workshop

Training neural network acoustic models on (multichannel) waveforms Ron Weiss in SANE 2015

Investigation of Listening Conditions Investigation of Listening Conditions for Multichannel

Multichannel Active Noise Control with Spatial Derivative Constraints to Enlarge the quiet zone

Sliced Inverse Regression with Interaction (Siri) Detection for non-Gaussian BN learning Jun S.

Embodied Emoticons | Antidepressant Face Detection Interaction Engineering, WS 2016/17, Augsburg

The Axion Resonant In InterAction Detection Experiment (A (ARIADNE) Andrew Geraci (UNR) Mark

Global Geometry of Multichannel Sparse Blind Deconvolution on the Sphere Yanjun Li Yoram Bresler

Watch it now! Access other webinars Multichannel Marketing How an IT company used pop culture to

Good Morning. It has been a rich few days with you. Thank you for sharing insights, laughter,

On the Correlation between Perceptual and Contextual Aspects of Laughter in Meetings Kornel

Presentation on Multichannel Nonlinear Scattering for Nonintegrable equations by A. Soffer and M.

Presentation on Multichannel Nonlinear Scattering for Nonintegrable equations by A. Soffer and M.

Above the Noise How an IT company leveraged a multichannel campaign to wake the dead Ch

LOST FOR NEARLY A CENTURY LOVE, LIFE AND LAUGHTER SCREENS AS BFI L FFS ARCHIVE SPECIAL

LECTURE 9: PRELIM EXAM REVIEW A C T O N E The Home We Live In MY THESIS Moving from laughter

The importance of laughter Aino Vonge Corry Ph.D Metadeveloper @apaipi Anden information Why

Reproduction of 22.2 multichannel audio w ith virtual rendering ITU-R Workshop Topics on the

Novel Motif Detection Algorithms for Finding Protein-Protein Interaction Sites January Wisniewski

the interaction physical characteristics of interaction interaction styles the

ILHAIRE Incorporating Laughter into Human-Avatar Interactions: Research and Evaluation UMONS