Cited by 978Emotion and Mood RecognitionSocial Robot Interaction and HRIInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Affective computing: challenges

Picard, Rosalind W.·2003·International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00052-1

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Picard, R. W.
Affiliations
MIT Media Lab (US)
Corresponding author
Picard, Rosalind W.
Venue
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-07
Volume
59
Issue
1-2
Pages
55-64
ISSN
1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018543616
Cited by
978
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 35
FWCI
13.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
affective computing, emotional expression, emotional communication, emotional responses, human-computer interaction, research challenges

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