Cited by 12Emotion and Mood RecognitionHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology

Efficacy of personalized models in discriminating high cognitive demand conditions using text-based interactions

Open access
Vizer, Lisa M., Sears, Andrew·2017·International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

Abstract

Although high cognitive demand conditions can impair psychological, physical, and behavioral processes without appropriate management, current measurement methods are too cumbersome for continuous monitoring of cognitive demand, and do not account for individual differences. This research uses keystroke and linguistic markers of typed text to construct individualized models of cognitive demand response to discriminate high and low cognitive demand conditions, the results of which can have implications for design of cognitive demand monitoring systems for personalized health management. We constructed within-subject models of cognitive demand response for nine participants and one between-subjects model based on 20 participants. The AUCs for personalized models ranged from 0.679 to 0.953 (Mean=0.826, SD=0.085), significantly higher than chance (p < 0.0001) and the 0.714 AUC for the generic model (p=0.002). Although the features in each model were different, the most common features across models are rate of negative emotion, lexical diversity, rate of words over six letters, and word count. These results confirm significant individual differences in cognitive demand response and suggest that those developing measurement methods used in a monitoring system should consider adaptation to individual characteristics. Our research operationalizes the effects of cognitive demand on HCI and contributes a unique combination of text and keystroke features used to detect high cognitive demand situations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.03.001

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Mandler G, 2010. Thought, memory, and learning: effects of emotional stressThe Handbook of Stress. The Free Press, New York, NY.
  2. Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S, 2011. Cognitive Load Theory. Springer, New York, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vizer, L. M., & Sears, A.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US)
Corresponding author
Vizer, Lisa M.
Venue
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
104
Pages
80-96
ISSN
1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2593362178
Cited by
12
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Library of Medicine (NLM) Biomedical and Health Informatics Training Program at the University of Washington (T15LM007442)
  • National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) (UL1TR001111)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Keywords
cognitive demand, keystroke dynamics, text-based interaction, personalized models, individual differences, lexical diversity, word length, word count, human-computer interaction, personalized health management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review