MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062925850 · doi:10.1177/154193120905301916

Emotrace: Tracing Emotions through Human-System Interaction

2009· article· en· W2062925850 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Lottridge, Mark Chignell

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTouchscreenValence (chemistry)Human–computer interactionSkin conductanceComplement (music)ArousalUser experience designPersonalizationSliderPsychologyEmotional valenceTracingComputer scienceCognitive psychologyCognitionSocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emotional reactions are a key part of user experience. This research examines capture of continuous, quantitative, affective self-reports as a complement to existing methods of evaluating human-system or product interaction. Emotrace is a novel method of measuring emotional responses on the two dimensions of valence and arousal. A pilot study was conducted to inform the design of three emotrace prototypes. This was followed by an experiment where 12 participants watched short videos to elicit emotions, with four self-report conditions (one-slider, two-slider, a touchscreen and no reporting) and physiological capture (heart rate variability and skin conductance). The tools were found to be valid, as ratings reflected the emotion content of the videos. The sliders were found to be more reliable when compared to the touchscreen. We conclude with preliminary recommendations concerning the use of emotrace measurement of emotional user experience to complement current methods of user-interaction evaluation.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207