The impact of wearing a heart rate monitoring wristband on museum visitors’ memory and emotions: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in technology have enabled museum curators to employ equipment that can measure visitors' physiological responses, offering a means to monitor these responses, while, at the same time, potentially engaging visitors. However, it is unclear whether these devices genuinely promote a positive experience or, conversely, are perceived as intrusive monitoring tools. Following traditional theories linking physiological responses, emotions and memory, we tested whether wearing a heart rate monitoring wristband during a temporary art exhibition could affect visitors' emotions and if emotional changes due to this manipulation could, in turn, affect the long-term memory of the artworks. Our findings show that using such a device heightened pleasant emotions experienced by visitors and improved their memory of the exhibit. These effects were still present even after six days from the visit. Moreover, we found that providing fake feedback concerning the emotions experienced in a specific room increased visitors' memory of artworks within that room. Our results are encouraging regarding the use of these technologies in museum exhibitions and bring evidence that they can enhance visitors' experiences, regardless of their accuracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".