Subjective objectivity: negotiating emotional meaning
Abstract
Affective computing systems face challenges in relating objective measures with subjective human experiences. Many systems have either focused on objective measures as a substitute for subjective experience (e.g. skin conductance as a direct representation of arousal) or have abandoned objective measures to focus purely on subjective experience. In this paper, we explore how to negotiate the relationship between objective signals and subjective experiences by highlighting the role of human interpretation. Our approach is informed by a reflective analysis drawing on the arts and the humanities and by a participatory study examining the emergence of emotional meaning. We demonstrate the potential of our approach for interactive affective systems through a series of conceptual designs that embody these understandings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The gap between what the current set of labels can capture and the richness of stuttering experiences reflects a long-standing question in HCI: the distinction between subjective, internal human experience and external observation.
“The gap between what the current set of labels can capture and the richness of stuttering experiences reflects a long-standing question in HCI: the distinction between subjective, internal human experience and external observation [59].”
From Disability-First AI Dataset Annotation: Co-designing Stuttered Speech Annotation Guidelines with People Who Stutter (2026) · cites this paper as [59]
Cites
Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Haraway, D. (1988) · Feminist Studies · doi:10.2307/3178066 · Cited by 18,364 · see citing works
Picard, R. W. (1997) · MIT Press · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001 · Cited by 7,382 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tang, X., Li, J., & Wu, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790405 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“The gap between what the current set of labels can capture and the richness of stuttering experiences reflects a long-standing question in HCI: the distinction between subjective, internal human experience and external observation [59].”
- Authors
- Leahu, L., Schwenk, S., & Sengers, P.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- ORCID
- Sengers, Phoebe
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2008-02-25
- Pages
- 425-434
- OpenAlex
- W1998721035
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.57
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Designing Interactive Systems Conference (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS-0238132IIS-0534445)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
- Keywords
- affective computing, subjective experience, human interpretation, emotional meaning, arts and humanities, participatory design, conceptual design, skin conductance, arousal
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
