MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052209655 · doi:10.1145/2543698.2543703

The Effect of Vibrotactile Stimulation on the Emotional Response to Horror Films

2013· article· en· W2052209655 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers in entertainment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkin conductanceFidelityHigh fidelityPsychologyAudiologyComputer scienceMultimediaAcousticsEngineeringMedicineTelecommunicationsBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decade consumers have witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of low fidelity, discrete vibrotactile feedback to enhance or replace audio stimuli in entertainment systems. However, use of high-resolution continuous vibrotactile displays remains quite uncommon. The Emoti-Chair is a high-resolution continuous vibrotactile display that may be driven by any type of audio signal, and is purported to convey the emotional properties of sound through organized vibrotactile stimulation. In the current study, we examined the ability of the Emoti-Chair to convey the emotional content of the soundtrack in a horror film. Increases in skin conductance levels were observed when vibrotactile stimuli were added to audio/visual film content. These results provide evidence that users can augment the communication of emotion in film through use of a high-resolution continuous vibrotactile display.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it