MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413030722 · doi:10.1101/2025.08.02.25332538

One does not fit all: Detecting work-related stress from mouse, keyboard, and cardiac data in the field

2025· preprint· en· W4413030722 on OpenAlexaff
Mara Naegelin, Raphael P. Weibel, Jasmine I. Kerr, Florian von Wangenheim, Victor R. Schinazi, Roberto La Marca, Christoph Höelscher, Urs M. Nater, Andrea Ferrario

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
FundersEidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
KeywordsField (mathematics)Work (physics)Stress (linguistics)PsychologyComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsMechanical engineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Continuously and unobtrusively monitoring work-related stress may help combat its detrimental effects on mental and physical health. For work in offices specifically, mouse and keyboard data have been suggested as highly suitable data sources for stress detection, in addition to physiological data such as heart rate variability (HRV). However, previous studies have yielded mixed results regarding the potential of mouse and keyboard data to detect stress, and very few works have examined the connection in real work environments. Moreover, concerns regarding the robustness and validity of existing stress detection approaches have been raised, emphasising the need for more rigorous investigations in the field. Methods We conducted an 8-week observational field study with office employees ( N = 36) where we collected mouse, keyboard, and cardiac data as well as self-reported stress during working hours. We derived mouse movement, keystroke dynamics, and HRV features, and trained regression models to detect self-reported stress levels using machine learning algorithms including Elastic Net, Random Forest, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Recurrent Neural Networks in two distinct modelling approaches: (1) one-fits-all, and (2) personalised. The first approach aims to detect the stress levels of a participant using training data from other participants. In the second, individual models are trained per participant. Results The one-fits-all modelling approach yields modest correlations with true labels (Spear-man’s ρ = 0.078) under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation, with a slight improvement when incorporating time series of feature values (Spearman’s ρ = 0.096). In the personalised approach, XGBoost models trained on mouse and keyboard features reach an average Spearman’s ρ of 0.188 under blocked cross-validation. When optimised across machine learning models and feature sets, performance of the personalised approach further improves, reaching an average Spearman’s ρ of 0.296. Conclusion Our results suggest that that developing robust and valid stress detection models from in-field data remains challenging, reflecting the complexity of affective computing in naturalistic settings. Personalised modelling approaches show encouraging potential and warrant further exploration. We offer actionable recommendations to advance research on automated stress detection in real-world settings and openly share our dataset to promote innovation and collaboration within the research community.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207