The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A continuous and objective evaluation of emotional experience with interactive play environments
Abstract
Researchers are using emerging technologies to develop novel play environments, while established computer and console game markets continue to grow rapidly. Even so, evaluating the success of interactive play environments is still an open research challenge. Both subjective and objective techniques fall short due to limited evaluative bandwidth; there remains no corollary in play environments to task performance with productivity systems. This paper presents a method of modeling user emotional state, based on a user's physiology, for users interacting with play technologies. Modeled emotions are powerful because they capture usability and playability through metrics relevant to ludic experience; account for user emotion; are quantitative and objective; and are represented continuously over a session. Furthermore, our modeled emotions show the same trends as reported emotions for fun, boredom, and excitement; however, the modeled emotions revealed differences between three play conditions, while the differences between the subjective reports failed to reach significance.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Picard, R. W. (1997) · MIT Press · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001 · Cited by 7,382
Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions
LANG, P. J., GREENWALD, M. K., BRADLEY, M. M., & HAMM, A. O. (1993) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03352.x · Cited by 3,190
Sweetser (2005) · doi:10.1145/1077246.1077253 · Cited by 2,124
Boucsein, W. (1992) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-5093-5 · Cited by 818
Using mental load for managing interruptions in physiologically attentive user interfaces
Chen, D., & Vertegaal, R. (2004) · CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985921.986103 · Cited by 120
Cited by
What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology
O'Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20801 · Cited by 1,397
From Mice to Men - 24 Years of Evaluation in CHI
Barkhuus, L., & Rode, J. A. (2007) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.2180963 · Cited by 180
(2010) · Cited by 140
Brainput: enhancing interactive systems with streaming fnirs brain input
Solovey, E., Schermerhorn, P., Scheutz, M., Sassaroli, A., Fantini, S., & Jacob, R. (2012) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2208372 · Cited by 86
Subjective objectivity: negotiating emotional meaning
Leahu, L., Schwenk, S., & Sengers, P. (2008) · Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems · doi:10.1145/1394445.1394491 · Cited by 61
Do You Feel the Same? On the Robustness of Cued-Recall Debriefing for User Experience Evaluation
Bruun, A., Law, E. L.-C., Nielsen, T. D., & Heintz, M. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3453479 · Cited by 16
Imprecise but Fun: Playful Interaction Using Electromyography
Karolus, J., Thanheiser, S., Peterson, D., Viot, N., Kosch, T., Schmidt, A., & Wozniak, P. W. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3546725 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Mandryk, R. L., Atkins, M. S., & Inkpen, K. M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2006-04-22
- Pages
- 1027-1036
- OpenAlex
- W2134033472
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 31.68
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
