MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132522078 · doi:10.1145/2503385.2503466

Immersive virtual reality and affective computing for gaming, fear and anxiety management

2013· article· en· W2132522078 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Karamnejad, Amber Choo, Diane Gromala, Chris Shaw, Jeremy Mamisao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBiofeedbackHuman–computer interactionVirtual realityImmersion (mathematics)MultimediaAnxietyVisualizationVideo gamePsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Video game developers are enthusiastic about creating novel interaction approaches that yield a better gaming experience; such interactions are usually built with physical and emotional immersion in mind. Technologies such as Wii®, Kinect®, and Playstation Move® focus on the physical movement of play to encourage seamless and natural behaviors during gameplay. On the other hand, technologies such as biofeedback are not yet being utilized to any large degree in the commercial industry and could be used to gain further knowledge of player's behavior and emotions. Biofeedback refers to technologies that provide awareness of human physiological functions through signals in order to control a system or improve those functions. This technology was primarily developed for clinical purposes to treat diseases such as headaches, high blood pressure, and epilepsy. The patients obtain the skill to control functions associated with aforementioned diseases by being exposed to equipment that measures and displays their bodily functions such as brain waves, heart rate, and galvanic skin response (GSR). This enables them to observe those senses through visualization and exert control over their physiological response over time.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207