Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2020
DOI: 10.1145/3424953.3426642
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study of users' subjective feeling collection instruments

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Use of the PAD scale to establish emoji meanings was successful and there was good agreement between the average PAD scores of this study and the scores for valence and arousal obtained by Jaeger, Roigard et al [22] using Self-Assessment Manikins (SAM: Bradley and Lang [21]). Since each PAD dimension is an average of six semantic differential, this measurement approach requires more effort than the SAMs, but it may be worthwhile considering that the manikins are not intuitive to everybody [40]. The use of the three different PAD dimensions and 7-point scale has the advantage that it offers a more nuanced perspective compared to traditional sentiment analysis which generally only provides a three-way classification of positive, neutral and negative sentiments [41].…”
Section: Emoji Meaningsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Use of the PAD scale to establish emoji meanings was successful and there was good agreement between the average PAD scores of this study and the scores for valence and arousal obtained by Jaeger, Roigard et al [22] using Self-Assessment Manikins (SAM: Bradley and Lang [21]). Since each PAD dimension is an average of six semantic differential, this measurement approach requires more effort than the SAMs, but it may be worthwhile considering that the manikins are not intuitive to everybody [40]. The use of the three different PAD dimensions and 7-point scale has the advantage that it offers a more nuanced perspective compared to traditional sentiment analysis which generally only provides a three-way classification of positive, neutral and negative sentiments [41].…”
Section: Emoji Meaningsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this regard, the encoding of emotional information has received so far greater attention than decoding, since it is tightly related to the action of detecting, representing or measuring emotions (da Silva et al, 2020;Fuentes et al, 2017;Mauss & Robinson, 2009;Mortillaro & Mehu, 2015). In their review of technologies for emotion-enhanced interaction already cited in Section 1.2, Cernea and Kern (2015) distinguishes between three types of techniques commonly adopted to estimate emotions: (1) perception-based estimation, derived from efferent manifestations of emotion such as facial expressions, vocal prosody or body posture (Bänziger et al, 2009;Martinez, Falvello, Aviezer, & Todorov, 2016); (2) physiological estimation, based on the detection of physiological patterns such as heart rate, blood pressure, or skin conductance (Shu et al, 2018); and (3) subjective feelings, based on the person's self-report of her own emotional experience (da Silva et al, 2020;Lavoué et al, 2017;Ritchie et al, 2016). As stated in the introduction, the thesis focuses on this last category.…”
Section: Theoretical Underpinningsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the one hand, researchers that are primarily interested in the affect-related consequences of the use of the tool (Cernea & Kerren, 2015;Lavoué et al, 2020;Lavoué et al, 2017). For them, setting up an appropriate affective space and disposing of accurate measures would probably be the most important features (da Silva et al, 2020;Mortillaro & Mehu, 2015;Ritchie et al, 2016). On the other hand, researchers or practitioners that are primarily interested in learning processes and outcomes.…”
Section: Usability Test Of the Toolboxmentioning
confidence: 99%