---
title: "Adapting the ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotation Scheme for"
description: "ISO 24617-2 supports system design but lacks medical and socio-emotional detail. 92 references, cited by 2 papers here."
authors: ["Volha Petukhova", "Harry Bunt"]
year: 2020
venue: "Proceedings of the 16th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation"
source: "https://aclanthology.org/2020.isa-1.9/"
licence: "CC BY-NC 4.0 (ELRA, LREC proceedings)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/petukhova-2020-adapting-iso-24617-2-dialogue/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/petukhova-2020-adapting-iso-24617-2-dialogue/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2020](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2020/page/8/) / Adapting the ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotation Scheme for Modelling Medical Consultations

# Adapting the ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotation Scheme for Modelling Medical Consultations

**Authors:** [Volha Petukhova](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/volha-petukhova/) and [Harry Bunt](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/harry-bunt/) · **Year:** 2020 · **Venue:** [Proceedings of the 16th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/isa/) ([Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation 2020](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/isa/2020/)) · **Publisher:** [European Language Resources Association (ELRA)](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/european-language-resources-association-elra/) · **Licence:** [CC BY-NC 4.0 (ELRA, LREC proceedings)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/2020.isa-1.9/) · [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/2020.isa-1.9.pdf) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W3087955900)

**Citations:** 1 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · [2](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/petukhova-2020-adapting-iso-24617-2-dialogue/cited-by/) in our library, of the 141,840 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
Medical conversations are studied with two families of tools that rarely meet. Clinicians rely on interaction-coding systems, chiefly RIAS. Computational linguists use dialogue act standards such as ISO 24617-2, a multidimensional, domain-independent taxonomy. RIAS captures clinically relevant behaviour but cannot directly drive a dialogue system. ISO 24617-2 supports system design but lacks medical and socio-emotional detail. The authors compare the categories of both schemes systematically and run annotation experiments to test how compatible the concepts are. They then define a mapping between the taxonomies and propose a set of extensions to ISO 24617-2:

- a new interpersonal-relation dimension
- finer question and directive functions
- high-level semantic content categories
- sentiment qualifiers derived from the RIAS global affect ratings

The result is one combined scheme meant to serve three uses: analysing patient-provider interaction, assessing the quality of technology-enhanced or technology-mediated consultations, and designing conversational medical applications. It matters because it links clinical communication research with the machinery that interoperable annotation and dialogue systems need.

## Key points
- The two schemes compared are RIAS (Roter Interaction Analysis System) and ISO 24617-2.
  - RIAS groups its actions into socio-emotional exchange, task-focused exchange and global affect ratings.
  - ISO 24617-2 splits communicative functions into general-purpose and dimension-specific ones.
- RIAS follows the "three functions model" of consultations:
  - managing the medical problem
  - building and maintaining the therapeutic relationship
  - patient education and treatment implementation
- The proposed ISO extensions add several elements:
  - an Interpersonal Relation Management dimension, whose functions include showing empathy, compassion and concern or worry, offering reassurance, legitimizing, voicing criticism, disclosing information about oneself, making jokes and engaging in small talk
  - Counsel as a subtype of Instruct
  - open-ended vs close-ended question types
  - Give orientation under Task Management
  - Elicit Understanding and Elicit Opinion under FeedbackElicitation
- Semantic content categories are added for medical conditions, therapeutic regimen, psychological feeling, lifestyle, social/demographic circumstances, administrative details and services.
- Eleven sentiment qualifiers are added, for example anxiety/nervousness, dominance/assertiveness and hurried/rushed. The Distress Analysis Interview Corpus (Gratch et al. 2014) is listed among the language resources.

## Interesting ideas
- The scheme keeps three things on separate axes: what an utterance does (communicative function), what it is about (coarse semantic content) and the speaker's affect (sentiment qualifier); one label carries all three without merging them into one flat tag set.
- Instead of picking one of two competing taxonomies, the authors build an explicit category-by-category mapping and treat the gaps as candidates for extension.
- Relationship-building acts such as empathy, reassurance and legitimizing get their own dimension, parallel to task acts, because a single utterance can advance the task and manage the relationship at once.
- New fine-grained functions are attached as subtypes of existing general ones (Counsel under Instruct, the open/close-ended split under questions), so tools that know only the parent still work.
- One annotation scheme is designed to serve analysis, quality assessment and system design together, with categories that both experts and machines can read.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): Speech-act output in prag could carry separate function, topic-class and affect slots, so each one can be explained and tested independently.
- **I2** (learn): The same audit could reconcile labels from different witness parsers or UD dialects, turning systematic mismatches into documented conversion or repair rules.
- **I3** (frames): Multidimensional speech-act tagging would let prag mark an utterance as both an Inform and a Reassurance, which helps with indirectness and irony.
- **I4** (world): The ontology and verb classes could grow by subtyping rather than by adding flat new labels, so older rules and readers can fall back to the parent class.
- **I5** (answer): Readers answering questions about dialogues in tales could reuse the same act labels to explain why a character responded as it did.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [Saarland University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/saarland-university/) — University, Saarbrücken, Germany · 102 works · 17,447 citations
- [Tilburg University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/tilburg-university/) — University, Tilburg, Netherlands · 40 works · 6,231 citations

📚 Shelves (6): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 9,086 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 8,889 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works · [🏥 Health Professions](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/health-professions/) · 14 works · [🏥 General Health Professions](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/health-professions/general-health-professions/) · 2 works

🧭 Topics (2): [🗨️ Dialogue systems](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/dialogue-systems/) · 401 works · [💬 Speech act theory](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/speech-act-theory/) · 160 works

## Cite

Cite as: Volha Petukhova and Harry Bunt. 2020. Adapting the ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotation Scheme for Modelling Medical Consultations. Proceedings of the 16th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@inproceedings{petukhova2020adapting,
  title = {{Adapting the ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotation Scheme for Modelling Medical Consultations}},
  author = {Volha Petukhova and Harry Bunt},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 16th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/2020.isa-1.9/}
}
```

- [← previous Punctuation Practice in Early Modern English Scientific Writing: The Case of MS 3009 at the Wellcome Library, London](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/criado-pena-2020-punctuation-practice-early-modern-english/)
- [next → An analysis of <i>all</i>-clefts](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/tellings-2020-analysis-i-all-i-clefts/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2020](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2020/page/8/)

## References

92 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Adams, R. L. (2013). Politeness strategies in decision-making between GPs and patients. Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Adams%2C+R%2E+L%2E+%282013%29%2E+Politeness+strategies+in+decision%2Dmaking+between+GPs+and+patients%2E+Ph%2ED%2E+thesis%2C+University+of+Birmingham%2E)
2. Al-Gahtani, S. and Roever, C. (2012). Role-playing l2 requests: Head acts and sequential organization. Applied Linguistics, 33(1):42–65. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Al%2DGahtani%2C+S%2E+and+Roever%2C+C%2E+%282012%29%2E+Role%2Dplaying+l2+requests%3A+Head+acts+and+sequential+organization%2E+Applied+Linguistics%2C+33%281%29%3A42%E2%80%9365%2E)
3. Allen, J. and Core, M. (1997). Draft of damsl: Dialog act markup in several layers. Available at [http://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/cisd/resources/damsl/](http://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/cisd/resources/damsl/). [↗](http://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/cisd/resources/damsl/)
4. Aronsson, K. and Sätterlund-Larsson, U. (1987). Politeness strategies and doctor-patient communication. on the social choreography of collaborative thinking. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(1):1–27. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x8700600101)
5. Atkinson, P. (1999). Medical discourse, evidentiality and the construction of professional responsibility. Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings, 1. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208375.2.75)
6. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bardovi%2DHarlig%2C+K%2E+and+Hartford%2C+B%2E+S%2E+%282005%29%2E+Interlanguage+pragmatics%3A+Exploring+institutional+talk%2E+Routledge%2E)
7. Beckman, H. B. and Frankel, R. M. (1984). The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Annals of Internal medicine, 101(5):692–696. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-101-5-692)
8. Bell, T. (2018). Can telemedicine be both cost efficient and high quality. US News and World Report. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bell%2C+T%2E+%282018%29%2E+Can+telemedicine+be+both+cost+efficient+and+high+quality%2E+US+News+and+World+Report%2E)
9. Blanchard, E. B., Jones-Alexander, J., Buckley, T. C., and Forneris, C. A. (1996). Psychometric properties of the ptsd checklist (pcl). Behaviour research and therapy, 34(8):669–673. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(96)00033-2)
10. Bluth, C. P. (2009). Community based managed health kiosk system for soliciting medical testing and health study participants, September 24. US Patent App. 12/407,677. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bluth%2C+C%2E+P%2E+%282009%29%2E+Community+based+managed+health+kiosk+system+for+soliciting+medical+testing+and+health+study+participants%2C+September+24%2E+US+Patent+App%2E+12%2F407%2C677%2E)
11. Bolioli, A. et al. (2019). How do physiotherapists and patients talk? developing and annotating rimotivazione dialogue corpus. In Proceedings of the Sixth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics, Bari, Italy. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bolioli%2C+A%2E+et+al%2E+%282019%29%2E+How+do+physiotherapists+and+patients+talk%3F+developing+and+annotating+rimotivazione+dialogue+corpus%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Sixth+Italian+Conference+on+Computational+Linguisti)
12. Brach, C. and Fraserirector, I. (2000). Can cultural competency reduce racial and ethnic health disparities? a review and conceptual model. Medical Care Research and Review, 57(1 suppl):181–217. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558700057001s09)
13. Brixey, J., Hoegen, R., Lan, W., Rusow, J., Singla, K., Yin, X., Artstein, R., and Leuski, A. (2017). Shihbot: A facebook chatbot for sexual health information on hiv/aids. In Proceedings of the 18th annual SIGdial meeting on discourse and dialogue, pages 370–373. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brixey%2C+J%2E%2C+Hoegen%2C+R%2E%2C+Lan%2C+W%2E%2C+Rusow%2C+J%2E%2C+Singla%2C+K%2E%2C+Yin%2C+X%2E%2C+Artstein%2C+R%2E%2C+and+Leuski%2C+A%2E+%282017%29%2E+Shihbot%3A+A+facebook+chatbot+for+sexual+health+information+on+hiv%2Faids%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+18th+)
14. Brône, G. and Oben, B. (2015). Insight interaction: a multimodal and multifocal dialogue corpus. Language resources and evaluation, 49(1):195–214. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-014-9283-2)
15. Bührig, K. (1996). Reformulierende Handlungen: Zur Analyse sprachlicher Adaptierungsprozesse in institutioneller Kommunikation, volume 23. Gunter Narr Verlag. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bu%CC%88hrig%2C+K%2E+%281996%29%2E+Reformulierende+Handlungen%3A+Zur+Analyse+sprachlicher+Adaptierungsprozesse+in+institutioneller+Kommunikation%2C+volume+23%2E+Gunter+Narr+Verlag%2E)
16. Bunt, H., Alexandersson, J., Choe, J.-W., Fang, A. C., Hasida, K., Petukhova, V., Popescu-Belis, A., and Traum, D. R. (2012). [ISO 24617-2: A semantically-based standard for dialogue annotation](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bunt-2012-iso-24617-2-semantically-based/). In LREC, pages 430–437. Citeseer.
17. Bunt, H., Gilmartin, E., Keizer, S., Pelachaud, C., Petukhova, V., Prévot, L., and Theune, M. (2018). Downward compatible revision of dialogue annotation. In Proceedings 14th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, pages 21–34. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E%2C+Gilmartin%2C+E%2E%2C+Keizer%2C+S%2E%2C+Pelachaud%2C+C%2E%2C+Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Pre%CC%81vot%2C+L%2E%2C+and+Theune%2C+M%2E+%282018%29%2E+Downward+compatible+revision+of+dialogue+annotation%2E+In+Proceedings+14th+Joint+ACL%2DISO+Workshop+o)
18. Bunt, H., Petukhova, V., Gilmartin, E., Pelachaud, C., Fang, A., Keizer, S., and Prévot, L. (2020). The ISO Standard for Ddialogue Act Aannotation, Ssecond Eedition. In Proceedings 12th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC(2020), Paris. ELRA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E%2C+Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Gilmartin%2C+E%2E%2C+Pelachaud%2C+C%2E%2C+Fang%2C+A%2E%2C+Keizer%2C+S%2E%2C+and+Pre%CC%81vot%2C+L%2E+%282020%29%2E+The+ISO+Standard+for+Ddialogue+Act+Aannotation%2C+Ssecond+Eedition%2E+In+Proceedings+12th+International)
19. Bunt, H. (2011). [The semantics of dialogue acts](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bunt-2011-semantics-dialogue-acts/). In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics, pages 1–13. Association for Computational Linguistics.
20. Bunt, H. (2019). Plug-ins for content annotation of dialogue acts. In Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-15), page 33. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282019%29%2E+Plug%2Dins+for+content+annotation+of+dialogue+acts%2E+In+Workshop+on+Interoperable+Semantic+Annotation+%28ISA%2D15%29%2C+page+33%2E)
21. Burkhardt, F. and Schröder, M. (2008). Emotion markup language: Requirements with priorities. W3C Incubator Group report. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Burkhardt%2C+F%2E+and+Schro%CC%88der%2C+M%2E+%282008%29%2E+Emotion+markup+language%3A+Requirements+with+priorities%2E+W3C+Incubator+Group+report%2E)
22. Caiata-Zufferey, M., Abraham, A., Sommerhalder, K., and Schulz, P. J. (2010). Online health information seeking in the context of the medical consultation in switzerland. Qualitative health research, 20(8):1050–1061. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310368404)
23. Chang, C. L., Park, B. K., and Kim, S. S. (2013). Conversational analysis of medical discourse in rehabilitation: A study in korea. The journal of spinal cord medicine, 36(1):24–30. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1179/2045772312y.0000000051)
24. Chapman, S. B., Highley, A. P., and Thompson, J. L. (1998). Discourse in fluent aphasia and alzheimer’s disease: Linguistic and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11(1-2):55–78. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0911-6044(98)00005-0)
25. Clark, R. A., Inglis, S. C., McAlister, F. A., Cleland, J. G., and Stewart, S. (2007). Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj, 334(7600):942. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39156.536968.55)
26. Collins, K. S., Hughes, D. L., Doty, M. M., Ives, B. L., Edwards, J. N., and Tenney, K. (2002). Diverse communities, common concerns: assessing health care quality for minority Americans. Commonwealth Fund New York. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Collins%2C+K%2E+S%2E%2C+Hughes%2C+D%2E+L%2E%2C+Doty%2C+M%2E+M%2E%2C+Ives%2C+B%2E+L%2E%2C+Edwards%2C+J%2E+N%2E%2C+and+Tenney%2C+K%2E+%282002%29%2E+Diverse+communities%2C+common+concerns%3A+assessing+health+care+quality+for+minority+Americans%2E+Commonwealth)
27. Conigliaro, R. L. (2001). Communicating with today’s patient: Essentials to save time, decrease risk, and increase patient compliance. Jama: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(6):725. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.6.725)
28. Cuetos, F., Arango-Lasprilla, J. C., Uribe, C., Valencia, C., and Lopera, F. (2007). Linguistic changes in verbal expression: a preclinical marker of alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13(3):433–439. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617707070609)
29. De Dreu, C. K. and Van Kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3):303–319. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.004)
30. Del Piccolo, L., De Haes, H., Heaven, C., Jansen, J., Verheul, W., Bensing, J., Bergvik, S., Deveugele, M., Eide, H., Fletcher, I., et al. (2011). Development of the verona coding definitions of emotional sequences to code health providers’ responses (vr-codes-p) to patient cues and concerns. Patient education and counseling, 82(2):149– 155. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.02.024)
31. DeVault, D., Georgila, K., Artstein, R., Morbini, F., Traum, D., Scherer, S., Morency, L.-P., et al. (2013). Verbal indicators of psychological distress in interactive dialogue with a virtual human. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2013 Conference, pages 193–202. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=DeVault%2C+D%2E%2C+Georgila%2C+K%2E%2C+Artstein%2C+R%2E%2C+Morbini%2C+F%2E%2C+Traum%2C+D%2E%2C+Scherer%2C+S%2E%2C+Morency%2C+L%2E%2DP%2E%2C+et+al%2E+%282013%29%2E+Verbal+indicators+of+psychological+distress+in+interactive+dialogue+with+a+virtual+human%2E+I)
32. DeVault, D., Artstein, R., Benn, G., Dey, T., Fast, E., Gainer, A., Georgila, K., Gratch, J., Hartholt, A., Lhommet, M., et al. (2014). Simsensei kiosk: A virtual human interviewer for healthcare decision support. In Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, pages 1061–1068. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5555/2615731.2617415)
33. Dham, S., Sharma, A., and Dhall, A. (2017). Depression scale recognition from audio, visual and text analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05865. [↗](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05865)
34. Dhillon, R., Bhagat, S., Carvey, H., and Shriberg, E. (2004). Meeting recorder project: Dialog act labeling guide. Technical report, INTERNATIONAL COM-PUTER SCIENCE INST BERKELEY CA. [↗](https://doi.org/10.21236/ada607947)
35. Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Wensing, M., Hood, K., Atwell, C., and Grol, R. (2003). Shared decision making: developing the option scale for measuring patient involvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 12(2):93–99. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.2.93)
36. Field, M. J. et al. (1996). Telemedicine: A guide to assessing telecommunications for health care. National Academies Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Field%2C+M%2E+J%2E+et+al%2E+%281996%29%2E+Telemedicine%3A+A+guide+to+assessing+telecommunications+for+health+care%2E+National+Academies+Press%2E)
37. Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., and Vierhile, M. (2017). Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (woebot): a randomized controlled trial. JMIR mental health, 4(2):e19. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7785)
38. Ford, S., Hall, A., Ratcliffe, D., and Fallowfield, L. (2000). The medical interaction process system (mips): an instrument for analysing interviews of oncologists and patients with cancer. Social Science & Medicine, 50(4):553–566. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00308-1)
39. Grigsby, J., Schlenker, R. E., Kaehny, M. M., Shaughnessy, P. W., and Sandberg, E. J. (1995). Analytic framework for evaluation of telemedicine. Telemedicine Journal, 1(1):31–39. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.1.1995.1.31)
40. Hogg, M. A. and Abrams, D. (2007). Social cognition and attitudes. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hogg%2C+M%2E+A%2E+and+Abrams%2C+D%2E+%282007%29%2E+Social+cognition+and+attitudes%2E)
41. Hughes, T., Flatt, J., Fu, B., Chang, C.-C., and Ganguli, M. (2013). Engagement in social activities and progression from mild to severe cognitive impairment: the myhat study. International psychogeriatrics, 25(04):587–595. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610212002086)
42. Inkster, B., Sarda, S., and Subramanian, V. (2018). An empathy-driven, conversational artificial intelligence agent (wysa) for digital mental well-being: real-world data evaluation mixed-methods study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(11):e12106. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2196/12106)
43. ISO. (2012). Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework – Part 2: Dialogue acts. ISO 24617-2. ISO Central Secretariat, Geneva. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ISO%2E+%282012%29%2E+Language+resource+management+%E2%80%93+Semantic+annotation+framework+%E2%80%93+Part+2%3A+Dialogue+acts%2E+ISO+24617%2D2%2E+ISO+Central+Secretariat%2C+Geneva%2E)
44. Kaplan, S. H., Greenfield, S., and Ware Jr, J. E. (1989). Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Medical care, pages S110–S127. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198903001-00010)
45. Kaplonyi, J., Bowles, K.-A., Nestel, D., Kiegaldie, D., Maloney, S., Haines, T., and Williams, C. (2017). Understanding the impact of simulated patients on health care learners’ communication skills: a systematic review. Medical education, 51(12):1209–1219. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13387)
46. Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 316341. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350934085.ch-014)
47. Kellermann, K. (2007). Persuasive question asking: how question wording influences answers. In Annual Meeting of the State Bar Association of California, Anaheim, CA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kellermann%2C+K%2E+%282007%29%2E+Persuasive+question+asking%3A+how+question+wording+influences+answers%2E+In+Annual+Meeting+of+the+State+Bar+Association+of+California%2C+Anaheim%2C+CA%2E)
48. Ker, J. and Bradley, P. (2013). Simulation in medical education. Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice, pages 175–192. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118472361.ch13)
49. Kindler, C., Szirt, L., Sommer, D., Häusler, R., and Langewitz, W. (2005). A quantitative analysis of anaesthetist– patient communication during the pre-operative visit. Anaesthesia, 60(1):53–59. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.03995.x)
50. Kulshreshtha, A., Kvedar, J. C., Goyal, A., Halpern, E. F., and Watson, A. J. (2010). Use of remote monitoring to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure: a pilot trial. International journal of telemedicine and applications, 2010:3. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/870959)
51. Langewitz, W., Conen, D., Nübling, M., and Weber, H. (2002). Communication matters–deficits in hospital care from the patients’ perspective. Psychotherapie, Psycho-somatik, medizinische Psychologie, 52(8):348–354. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Langewitz%2C+W%2E%2C+Conen%2C+D%2E%2C+Nu%CC%88bling%2C+M%2E%2C+and+Weber%2C+H%2E+%282002%29%2E+Communication+matters%E2%80%93deficits+in+hospital+care+from+the+patients%E2%80%99+perspective%2E+Psychotherapie%2C+Psycho%2Dsomatik%2C+medizinische+Psychologie%2C+)
52. Lazare, A., Putnam, S. M., and Lipkin, M. (1995). Three functions of the medical interview. In The medical interview, pages 3–19. Springer. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2488-4_1)
53. Lindemann, K. (2015). Emotionen in medizinischer kommunikation. Handbuch Sprache in der Medizin, 11:154. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-139083)
54. Lucas, G. M., Gratch, J., King, A., and Morency, L.-P. (2014). It’s only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior, 37:94–100. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.043)
55. Luperfoy, S. (2004). Retrofitting synthetic dialog agents to game characters for lifestyle risk training. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Dialogue Systems for Health Communication. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Luperfoy%2C+S%2E+%282004%29%2E+Retrofitting+synthetic+dialog+agents+to+game+characters+for+lifestyle+risk+training%2E+In+AAAI+Fall+Symposium+on+Dialogue+Systems+for+Health+Communication%2E)
56. Malchanau, A., Petukhova, V., and Bunt, H. (2018). Towards continuous dialogue corpus creation: Writing to corpus and generating from it. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation(LREC 2018), Myiazaki, Japan. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Malchanau%2C+A%2E%2C+Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+and+Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282018%29%2E+Towards+continuous+dialogue+corpus+creation%3A+Writing+to+corpus+and+generating+from+it%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+11th+International+Conference+on+Languag)
57. McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., and Scalese, R. J. (2010). A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Medical education, 44(1):50–63. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x)
58. Miller, E. A. and Nelson, E.-L. (2005). Modifying the roter interaction analysis system to study provider–patient communication in telemedicine: promises, pitfalls, insights, and recommendations. Telemedicine Journal & e-Health, 11(1):44–55. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2005.11.44)
59. Miller, E. A. (2001). Telemedicine and doctor-patient communication: an analytical survey of the literature. Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 7(1):1–17. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1258/1357633011936075)
60. Mirheidari, B., Blackburn, D., Reuber, M., Walker, T., and Christensen, H. (2016). Diagnosing people with dementia using automatic conversation analysis. In Proceedings of interspeech, pages 1220–1224. ISCA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mirheidari%2C+B%2E%2C+Blackburn%2C+D%2E%2C+Reuber%2C+M%2E%2C+Walker%2C+T%2E%2C+and+Christensen%2C+H%2E+%282016%29%2E+Diagnosing+people+with+dementia+using+automatic+conversation+analysis%2E+In+Proceedings+of+interspeech%2C+pages+1220%E2%80%931224)
61. Murray, E., Hekler, E. B., Andersson, G., Collins, L. M., Doherty, A., Hollis, C., Rivera, D. E., West, R., and Wyatt, J. C. (2016). Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions and approaches. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.008)
62. Ong, L. M., De Haes, J. C., Hoos, A. M., and Lammes, F. B. (1995). Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Social science & medicine, 40(7):903–918. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)00155-m)
63. Patel Kuehl, S. (2011). Communication tools for the modern doctor bag. physician patient communication part 1: beginning of a medical interview. Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives, 1(3):8428. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3402/jchimp.v1i3.8428)
64. Petukhova, V., Gropp, M., Klakow, D., Schmidt, A., Eigner, G., Topf, M., Srb, S., Motlicek, P., Potard, B., Dines, J., et al. (2014). The DBOX corpus collection of spoken human-human and human-machine dialogues. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 14). European Language Resources Association (ELRA). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Gropp%2C+M%2E%2C+Klakow%2C+D%2E%2C+Schmidt%2C+A%2E%2C+Eigner%2C+G%2E%2C+Topf%2C+M%2E%2C+Srb%2C+S%2E%2C+Motlicek%2C+P%2E%2C+Potard%2C+B%2E%2C+Dines%2C+J%2E%2C+et+al%2E+%282014%29%2E+The+DBOX+corpus+collection+of+spoken+human%2Dhuman+and+human%2Dmachine)
65. Petukhova, V., Stevens, C. A., de Weerd, H., Taatgen, N., Cnossen, F., and Malchanau, A. (2016). Modelling multi-issue bargaining dialogues: Data collection, annotation design and corpus. In LREC. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Stevens%2C+C%2E+A%2E%2C+de+Weerd%2C+H%2E%2C+Taatgen%2C+N%2E%2C+Cnossen%2C+F%2E%2C+and+Malchanau%2C+A%2E+%282016%29%2E+Modelling+multi%2Dissue+bargaining+dialogues%3A+Data+collection%2C+annotation+design+and+corpus%2E+In+LREC%2E)
66. Petukhova, V., Bunt, H., and Malchanau, A. (2017). Computing negotiation update semantics in multi-issue bargaining dialogues. In Proceedings of the SemDial 2017 (SaarDial) Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Saarbrücken, Germany. [↗](https://doi.org/10.22028/d291-29409)
67. Petukhova, V., Malchanau, A., Oualil, Y., Klakow, D., Luz, S., Haider, F., Campbell, N., Koryzis, D., Spiliotopoulos, D., Albert, P., Linz, N., and Alexandersson, J. (2018). The metalogue debate trainee corpus: Data collection and annotations. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Paris: ELRA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Malchanau%2C+A%2E%2C+Oualil%2C+Y%2E%2C+Klakow%2C+D%2E%2C+Luz%2C+S%2E%2C+Haider%2C+F%2E%2C+Campbell%2C+N%2E%2C+Koryzis%2C+D%2E%2C+Spiliotopoulos%2C+D%2E%2C+Albert%2C+P%2E%2C+Linz%2C+N%2E%2C+and+Alexandersson%2C+J%2E+%282018%29%2E+The+metalogue+debate+train)
68. Petukhova, V., Sharifullaeva, F., and Klakow, D. (2019). Modelling shared decision making in medical negotiations: Interactive training with cognitive agents. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, pages 251–270. Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Sharifullaeva%2C+F%2E%2C+and+Klakow%2C+D%2E+%282019%29%2E+Modelling+shared+decision+making+in+medical+negotiations%3A+Interactive+training+with+cognitive+agents%2E+In+International+Conference+on+Principles)
69. Petukhova, V. (2011). Multidimensional Dialogue Modelling. PhD dissertation. Tilburg University, The Netherlands. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E+%282011%29%2E+Multidimensional+Dialogue+Modelling%2E+PhD+dissertation%2E+Tilburg+University%2C+The+Netherlands%2E)
70. Pires, C. M. and Cavaco, A. M. (2014). Communication between health professionals and patients: review of studies using the rias (roter interaction analysis system) method. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, 60(2):156–172. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.60.02.014)
71. Reid, M., Walsh, C., Raubenheimer, J., Bradshaw, T., Pienaar, M., Hassan, C., Nyoni, C., and Le Roux, M. (2018). Development of a health dialogue model for patients with diabetes: A complex intervention in a low-/middle income country. International journal of Africa nursing sciences, 8:122–131. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijans.2018.05.002)
72. Robins, L. S. and Wolf, F. M. (1988). Confrontation and politeness strategies in physician-patient interactions. Elsevier. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(88)90124-4)
73. Roter, D. and Hall, J. A. (2006). Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors: improving communication in medical visits. Greenwood Publishing Group. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400641794)
74. Roter, D. and Larson, S. (2002). The roter interaction analysis system (rias): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient education and counseling, 46(4):243–251. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00012-5)
75. Roter, D. (2000). The medical visit context of treatment decision-making and the therapeutic relationship. Health Expectations, 3(1):17–25. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-6513.2000.00073.x)
76. Sandvik, M., Eide, H., Lind, M., Graugaard, P. K., Torper, J., and Finset, A. (2002). Analyzing medical dialogues: strength and weakness of roter’s interaction analysis system (rias). Patient education and counseling, 46(4):235– 241. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00014-9)
77. Schuman, H. and Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Sage. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schuman%2C+H%2E+and+Presser%2C+S%2E+%281996%29%2E+Questions+and+answers+in+attitude+surveys%3A+Experiments+on+question+form%2C+wording%2C+and+context%2E+Sage%2E)
78. Schwarz, N. and Oyserman, D. (2001). Asking questions about behavior: Cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. The American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2):127–160. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s1098-2140(01)00133-3)
79. Schyve, P. M. (2007). Language differences as a barrier to quality and safety in health care: the joint commission perspective. Journal of general internal medicine, 22(2):360–361. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0365-3)
80. Silverman, J., Kurtz, S., and Draper, J. (2016). Skills for communicating with patients. CRC Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1201/9781910227268)
81. Spooner, A. J., Aitken, L. M., Corley, A., and Chaboyer, W. (2018). Developing a minimum dataset for nursing team leader handover in the intensive care unit: A focus group study. Australian Critical Care, 31(1):47–52. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.01.005)
82. Stepanov, E. A., Lathuiliere, S., Chowdhury, S. A., Ghosh, A., Vieriu, R.-L., Sebe, N., and Riccardi, G. (2018). Depression severity estimation from multiple modalities. In 2018 IEEE 20th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom), pages 1–6. IEEE. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stepanov%2C+E%2E+A%2E%2C+Lathuiliere%2C+S%2E%2C+Chowdhury%2C+S%2E+A%2E%2C+Ghosh%2C+A%2E%2C+Vieriu%2C+R%2E%2DL%2E%2C+Sebe%2C+N%2E%2C+and+Riccardi%2C+G%2E+%282018%29%2E+Depression+severity+estimation+from+multiple+modalities%2E+In+2018+IEEE+20th+Internationa)
83. Street Jr, R. L. and Millay, B. (2001). Analyzing patient participation in medical encounters. Health communication, 13(1):61–73. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1301_06)
84. Suchman, A. L., Markakis, K., Beckman, H. B., and Frankel, R. (1997). A model of empathic communication in the medical interview. Jama, 277(8):678–682. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540320082047)
85. Tuckett, D., Boulton, M., Olson, C., and Williams, A. (1985). Meetings Between Experts. An Approach to Sharing Ideas in Medical Consultations. London: Tavistock. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tuckett%2C+D%2E%2C+Boulton%2C+M%2E%2C+Olson%2C+C%2E%2C+and+Williams%2C+A%2E+%281985%29%2E+Meetings+Between+Experts%2E+An+Approach+to+Sharing+Ideas+in+Medical+Consultations%2E+London%3A+Tavistock%2E)
86. Turgiss, J. L., Boylan, R. M., and Harrison, G. R. (2011). Interactive, internet supported health and fitness management system, September 27. US Patent 8,027,822. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Turgiss%2C+J%2E+L%2E%2C+Boylan%2C+R%2E+M%2E%2C+and+Harrison%2C+G%2E+R%2E+%282011%29%2E+Interactive%2C+internet+supported+health+and+fitness+management+system%2C+September+27%2E+US+Patent+8%2C027%2C822%2E)
87. Weiss, N. (2004). E-mail consultation: clinical, financial, legal, and ethical implications. Surgical neurology, 61(5):455–459. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surneu.2003.09.029)
88. Wolf, M., Petukhova, V., and Klakow, D. (2019). Term-based extraction of medical information: Pre-operative patient education use case. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Procesing (RANLP 2019), Varna, Bulgaria. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wolf%2C+M%2E%2C+Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+and+Klakow%2C+D%2E+%282019%29%2E+Term%2Dbased+extraction+of+medical+information%3A+Pre%2Doperative+patient+education+use+case%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+International+Conference+on+Recent+Advance)
89. Woods, B., Aguirre, E., Spector, A., and Orrell, M. (2012). Cognitive stimulation to improve cognitive functioning in people with dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2(2). [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005562.pub2)
90. Zillmann, D. (1972). Rhetorical elicitation of agreement in persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 21(2):159. 8. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032316)
91. Language Resource References Gratch et al. 2014 The distress analysis interview corpus of human and computer interviews. In Proceedings of LREC 2014, pages 3123–3128 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Language+Resource+References+Gratch+et+al%2E+2014+The+distress+analysis+interview+corpus+of+human+and+computer+interviews%2E+In+Proceedings+of+LREC+2014%2C+pages+3123%E2%80%933128)
92. Appendix A ISO 24617-2:2012 dimensions and communicative functions in extended with RIAS acts, semantic content and sentiment qualifiers General-Purpose Communicative Functions Open-ended Question - Open-ended Set-Question - Open-ended Propositional Question Close-ended Question - Close-ended Set-Question - Close-ended Propositional Question - - Check-Question - Choice-Question Inform - Agreement - Disagreement - - Correction - Answer - - Confirm - - Disconfirm Request - Instruct - Counsel Address Offer - Accept Offer - Decline Offer Suggest Address Suggestion - Accept Suggestion - Decline Suggestion Offer - Promise Address Request - Accept Request - Decline Request Semantic Content [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Appendix+A+ISO+24617%2D2%3A2012+dimensions+and+communicative+functions+in+extended+with+RIAS+acts%2C+semantic+content+and+sentiment+qualifiers+General%2DPurpose+Communicative+Functions+Open%2Dended+Question+%2D+O)

*Updated 24 October 2026*