Emotion Detection on User Front-Facing App Interfaces for Enhanced Schedule Optimization: A Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) has evolved significantly to incorporate emotion recognition capabilities, creating unprecedented opportunities for adaptive and personalized user experiences. This paper explores the integration of emotion detection into calendar applications, enabling user interfaces to dynamically respond to users' emotional states and stress levels, thereby enhancing both productivity and engagement. We present and evaluate two complementary approaches to emotion detection: a biometric-based method utilizing heart rate (HR) data extracted from electrocardiogram (ECG) signals processed through Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) neural networks to predict the emotional dimensions of Valence, Arousal, and Dominance; and a behavioral method analyzing computer activity through multiple machine learning models to classify emotions based on fine-grained user interactions such as mouse movements, clicks, and keystroke patterns. Our comparative analysis, from real-world datasets, reveals that while both approaches demonstrate effectiveness, the computer activity-based method delivers superior consistency and accuracy, particularly for mouse-related interactions, which achieved approximately 90% accuracy. Furthermore, GRU networks outperformed LSTM models in the biometric approach, with Valence prediction reaching 84.38% 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".