Participants’ personal note-taking in meetings and its value for automatic meeting summarisation | Information Technology and Management Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Participants’ personal note-taking in meetings and its value for automatic meeting summarisation

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the results of novel quantitative research on multiple people’s personal note-taking in meetings with the long-term aim of aiding the creation of innovative meeting understanding applications. We present three experiments using a large number of group meetings taken from the Augmented Multi-party Interaction meeting corpus. Statistical techniques were employed for this work. Our findings suggest that temporal note-taking overlap information and the semantic content of the written private notes taken by many meeting participants both point to the majority of the most informative meeting events. Thus, the characteristics of note-taking can be seen as a contributing feature for new automatic meeting summarisation approaches and for the development of future meeting browser environments that better support the needs of individuals and organisations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 3M Online Survey (1998) 3M Online Survey [online]. http://www.3m.com/meetingnetwork/. Accessed 06 Dec 2006

  2. Arons B (1994). Pitch-based emphasis detection for segmenting speech recordings. In: Proceedings of ICSLP, pp 1931–1934

  3. Arons B (1997) Speech skimmer: a system for interactively skimming recorded speech. In: ACM, pp 3–38

  4. Banerjee S, Rudnicky A (2004) Using simple speech-based features to detect the state of a meeting and the roles of the meeting participants. In: Proceedings of ICSLP

  5. Banerjee S, Rose C, Rudnicky A (2005) The necessity of a meeting recording and playback system, and the benefit of topic level annotations to meeting browsing. In: Proceedings of HCI interaction conference, pp 643–656

  6. Banerjee S, Rudnicky A (2006) You are what you say: using meeting participants’ speech to detect their roles and expertise. In: Proceedings of the analyzing conversations in text and speech workshop at HLT-NAACL, pp 23–30

  7. Banerjee S, Rudnicky A (2007) Segmenting meetings into agenda items by extracting implicit supervision from human note-taking. In: Proceedings of IUI, Honolulu, USA, pp 151–159

  8. Banerjee S, Rudnicky A (2009) Detecting the noteworthiness of utterances in human meetings. In: Proceedings of SIGDIAL, London, UK, pp 71–78

  9. Barzilay R, Elhadad M (1997) Using lexical chains for text summarisation. In: Proceedings of ACL/EACL, Madrid, Spain

  10. Bett M, Gross R, Yu H, Zhu X, Pan Y, Yang J, Waibel A (2000) Multimodal meeting tracker. In: Proceedings of RIAO, Paris, France

  11. Bothin A, Clough P (2010) Quantitative analysis of individual differences in note-taking and talking behaviour in meetings. In: Proceedings of IADIS ICT, Society and Human Beings (ICT Humans) conference, part of MCCSIS, Freiburg, Germany

  12. Carletta J (2006) Announcing the AMI meeting corpus. ELRA Newsl 11(1):3–5

    Google Scholar 

  13. Castronovo S, Frey J, Poller P (2008) A generic layout-tool for summaries of meetings in a constraint-based approach. In: Proceedings of MLMI, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp 248–259

  14. Chiu P, Kapuskar A, Reitmeier S, Wilcox L (1999) NoteLook: taking notes in meetings with digital video and ink. In: Proceedings of ACM multimedia, Orlando, USA, pp 149–158

  15. Edmundson HP (1969) New methods in automatic extracting. J Assoc Comput Mach 16(2):264–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ehlen P, Purver M, Niekrasz J (2007) A meeting browser that learns. In: Proceedings of the AAAI spring symposium on interaction challenges for intelligent assistants

  17. Fernandez R, Frampton M, Ehlen P, Purver M, Peters S (2008) Modelling and detecting decisions in multi-party dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 9th SIGDIAL workshop on discourse and dialogue, Columbus, USA, pp 156–163

  18. Field A (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Galley M, McKeown K, Hirschberg J, Shriberg E (2004) Identifying agreement and disagreement in conversational speech: use of Bayesian networks to model pragmatic dependencies. In: Proceedings of ACL

  20. George JA, Rodger JA (2010) Smart data: enterprise performance optimization strategy. Wiley-Blackwell, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Germesin S, Wilson T (2009) Agreement detection in multi-party conversation. In: Proceedings of ICMI-MLMI, Cambridge, USA, pp 7–13

  22. Hillard D, Ostendorf M, Shriberg E (2003) Detection of agreement vs. disagreement in meetings: training data with unlabeled data. In: Proceedings of NAACL HLT

  23. Hsueh P-Y, Moore J (2007) What decisions have you made: automatic decision detection in conversational speech. In: Proceedings of NAACL HLT, Rochester, USA, pp 25–32

  24. Hsueh P-Y, Moore J (2009) Improving meeting summarisation by focusing on user needs: a task-oriented evaluation. In: Proceedings of IUI, Sanibel Island, USA

  25. ICT Results (2010) The Internet of meetings. Science Daily. [Online]. http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100423215026.htm. Accessed 23 Aug 2010

  26. Jackson T, Dawson R, Wilson D (2003) Understanding email interaction increases organisational productivity. Commun ACM 46(8):80–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kalnikaite V, Whittaker S (2007) Software or wetware? Discovering when and why people use digital prosthetic memory. In: Proceedings of CHI, New York, USA

  28. Kalnikaite V, Whittaker S (2008a) Temporal tagging: implicit behaviour identifies points of interest in complex event recordings. In: AAAI social information processing symposium

  29. Kalnikaite V, Whittaker S (2008b) Social summarisation: does social feedback improve access to speech data? In: Proceedings of CSCW, San Diego, USA

  30. Kennedy L, Ellis D (2003) Pitch-based emphasis detection for characterization of meeting recordings. In: Proceedings of ICASSP

  31. Khan F (1992) A survey of note-taking practices. Technical report, Hewlett Packard Laboratories

  32. Kupiec J, Pedersen J, Chen F (1995) A trainable document summariser. In: SIGIR

  33. Landay J, Davis R (1999) Making sharing pervasive: ubiquitous computing for shared note taking. IBM Syst J 38(4):531–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lisowska A, Popescu-Belis A, Armstrong S (2004) User query analysis for the specification and evaluation of a dialogue processing and retrieval system. In: Proceedings of LREC, Lisbon, Portugal

  35. Luhn HP (1958) The automatic creation of literature abstracts. IBM J Res Dev 2(2):159–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mani I (2001) Automatic summarisation. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  37. Marcu D (2000) The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarisation. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  38. Morgan W, Chang P, Gupta S, Brenier J (2006) Automatically detecting action items in audio meeting recordings. In: Proceedings of the 7th SIGDIAL workshop on discourse and dialogue, pp 96–103

  39. Murray G, Renals S (2006) Dialogue act compression via pitch contour preservation. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on spoken language processing, Pittsburgh, USA

  40. Murray G, Renals S (2007) Term-weighting for summarisation of multi-party spoken dialogues. In: Proceedings of MLMI

  41. Murray G, Kleinbauer T, Poller P, Renals S, Kilgour J, Becker T (2008) Extrinsic summarisation evaluation: a decision audit task. In: Proceedings of MLMI, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp 349–361

  42. Murray G, Renals S (2008a) Detecting action items in meetings. In: Proceedings of MLMI, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp 208–213

  43. Murray G, Renals S (2008b) Meta comments for summarising meeting speech. In: Proceedings of MLMI, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp 236–247

  44. Piolat A, Olive T, Kellogg R (2005) Cognitive effort during note-taking. Appl Cogn Psychol 19:291–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Purver M, Ehlen P, Niekrasz J (2006) Shallow discourse structure for action item detection. In: Proceedings of the ACTS workshop at HLT-NAACL, pp 31–34

  46. Renals S (2010) Recognition and understanding of meetings. In: Proceedings of HLT, Los Angeles, USA, pp 1–9

  47. Rodger JA, George JA (2010) Adapting the task-technology-fit model and smart data to validate end-user acceptance of the voice-activated medical tracking application (VAMTA). In: Neustein A (ed) Visions of speech: exploring new voice apps in mobile environments, call centers and clinics. Springer, Norwell

  48. Salton G, Singhal A, Mitra M, Buckley C (1997) Automatic text structuring and summarisation. Inf Process Manage 33(2):193–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Spira J, Feintuch J (2005) The cost of not paying attention: how interruptions impact knowledge worker productivity. Basex report

  50. Stifelman L, Arons B, Schmandt C (2001) The audio notebook—paper and pen interaction with structured speech. In: Proceedings of CHI, pp 182–189

  51. Tucker S, Whittaker S (2005) Novel techniques for time-compressing speech: an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of ICASSP

  52. Waibel A, Bett M, Finke M, Stiefelhagen R (1998) Meeting browser: tracking and summarizing meetings. In: Proceedings of the DARPA broadcast news workshop

  53. Wellner P, Flynn M, Guillemot M (2004) Browsing recorded meetings with ferret. In: Proceedings of MLMI, Martigny, Switzerland, pp 12–21

  54. Whittaker S, Hyland P, Wiley M (1994) Filochat: handwritten notes provide access to recorded conversations. In: Proceedings of CHI, Boston, USA, pp 271–277

  55. Whittaker S, Laban R, Tucker S (2005) Analysing meeting records: an ethnographic study and technological implications. In: Proceedings of MLMI, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

  56. Whittaker S, Tucker S, Swampillai K, Laban R (2008) Design and evaluation of systems to support interaction capture and retrieval. Pers Ubiquit Comput 12:197–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wilcox L, Schilit B, Sawhney N (1997) Dynomite: a dynamically organised ink and audio notebook. In: Proceedings of CHI, pp 186–193

  58. Wolf C, Rhyne J, Briggs L (1992) Communication and information retrieval with a pen-based meeting support tool. In: CSCW 1992 proceedings, pp 322–329

  59. Wrede B, Shriberg E (2003a) Spotting “hotspots” in meetings: human judgments and prosodic cues. In: Proceedings of the European conference on speech communication and technology (Eurospeech), Geneva, Switzerland, pp 2805–2808

  60. Wrede B, Shriberg E (2003b) The relationship between dialogue acts and hot spots in meetings. In: Workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding, pp 180–185

  61. Yu Z, Nakamura Y (2010) Smart meeting systems: a survey of state-of-the-art and open issues. ACM Comput Surv 42(2):8:1–8:20

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zechner K (2002) Summarisation of spoken language—challenges, methods, and prospects. In: Speech technology expert eZine

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the creators of the AMI meeting corpus for providing us with meeting recordings and annotations. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information School, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 211 Portobello Street, Sheffield, S1 4DP, UK

    Antje Bothin & Paul Clough

Authors
  1. Antje Bothin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Clough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antje Bothin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bothin, A., Clough, P. Participants’ personal note-taking in meetings and its value for automatic meeting summarisation. Inf Technol Manag 13, 39–57 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-011-0112-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-011-0112-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation