Modeling dominance effects on nonverbal behaviors using granger causality

In this paper we modeled the effects that dominant people might induce on the nonverbal behavior (speech energy and body motion) of the other meeting participants using Granger causality technique. Our initial hypothesis that more dominant people have generalized higher influence was not validated when using the DOME-AMI corpus as data source. However, from the correlational analysis some interesting patterns emerged: contradicting our initial hypothesis dominant individuals are not accounting for the majority of the causal flow in a social interaction. Moreover, they seem to have more intense causal effects as their causal density was significantly higher. Finally dominant individuals tend to respond to the causal effects more often with complementarity than with mimicry.

[1]  J. Durbin,et al.  Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. I. , 1950, Biometrika.

[2]  Daniel Gatica-Perez,et al.  Fusing Audio-Visual Nonverbal Cues to Detect Dominant People in Group Conversations , 2010, 2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.

[3]  Daniel Gatica-Perez,et al.  A Multimodal Corpus for Studying Dominance in Small Group Conversations , 2010 .

[4]  L. Tiedens,et al.  Power moves: complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  S. Shankar Sastry,et al.  High-Speed Action Recognition and Localization in Compressed Domain Videos , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.

[6]  V. Manusov The sourcebook of nonverbal measures : going beyond words , 2004 .

[7]  Samy Bengio,et al.  Modeling individual and group actions in meetings with layered HMMs , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[8]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  A Multimodal Database for Mimicry Analysis , 2011, ACII.

[9]  C. Gold,et al.  Dispositional and situational influences on dominance behavior in small groups. , 1983 .

[10]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[11]  Roseanne J. Foti,et al.  A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence , 1998 .

[12]  C. Granger Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods , 1969 .

[13]  Marianne Schmid Mast,et al.  Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time: A meta-analysis , 2002 .

[14]  Chuohao Yeo,et al.  Modeling Dominance in Group Conversations Using Nonverbal Activity Cues , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[15]  A Meta-Analysis,et al.  Dominance as Expressed and Inferred Through Speaking Time , 2002 .

[16]  Anil K. Seth,et al.  A MATLAB toolbox for Granger causal connectivity analysis , 2010, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[17]  J. Durbin,et al.  Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. II. , 1950, Biometrika.

[18]  J. Geweke,et al.  Measurement of Linear Dependence and Feedback between Multiple Time Series , 1982 .

[19]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Automatic Modeling of Dominance Effects Using Granger Causality , 2011, HBU.

[20]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  Jean-Marc Odobez,et al.  Using audio and video features to classify the most dominant person in a group meeting , 2007, ACM Multimedia.

[22]  James M. Rehg,et al.  Temporal causality for the analysis of visual events , 2010, 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[23]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .