MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065069480 · doi:10.1145/2030441.2030461

Simple motion textures for ambient affect

2011· article· en· W2065069480 on OpenAlexafffund
Matt Lockyer, Lyn Bartram, Bernhard E. Riecke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMicrosoft
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Motion (physics)Computer scienceAtmosphere (unit)Valence (chemistry)Human–computer interactionComputer visionCognitive psychologyPsychologyCommunicationGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The communication of emotion and the creation of affect are core to creating immersive and engaging experiences, such as those in performance, games and simulation. They often rely on atmospheric cues that influence how an environment feels. The design of such ambient visual cues for affect is an elusive topic that has been studied by painters, theatre directors, scenic designers, lighting designers, filmmakers, producers, and artists for years. Research shows that simple motions have the capacity to be both perceptually efficient and powerfully evocative, and motion textures -- patterns of ambient motion throughout the scene -- are frequently used to imbue the atmosphere with affect. To date there is little empirical evidence of what properties of motion texture are most influential in this affect. In this paper we report the results of a study of simple, abstract motion textures that show path curvature, speed and texture layout can influence affective impressions such as valence, comfort, urgency and intensity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207