close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

DOI - ResearchGate

код для вставки
2011 Third International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems
Emotion Measurement in Intelligent Tutoring Systems:
What, When and How to Measure
Michalis Feidakis1,
mfeidakis@aegean.gr
1
Thanasis Daradoumis1,2
daradoumis@aegean.gr
Santi CaballГ©2
scaballe@uoc.edu
Department of Cultural Technology and Communication (D.C.T.C), School of Social Sciences, University of
Aegean, Mytilini, Greece
2
Department of Computer Science, Multimedia and Telecommunications,
Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
• Emotion (derives from the Latin prefix emot=moving
away) refers to a “shaking” of the organism as a
response to a particular stimulus (person, situation or
event), which is generalized and occupies the person
as a whole. It is usually an intense experience of short
duration - seconds to minutes - and the person is
typically well aware of it.
• Affect is a synthesis of all likely effects of emotion
(cognitive, organic, etc) and includes their dynamic
interaction, but is not evened individually with any of
them.
• Feeling is always experienced in relation to a
particular object of which the person is aware. It may
have various levels of intensity, and its duration
depends on the length of time that the representation
of the object remains active in the mind of the
individual.
• Mood tends to be subtler, longer lasting, less
intensive, more in the background, giving the
affective state of a person a tendency in positive or
negative direction.
In general, affect is the effect of emotion in the organism.
Mood is a result as well as an influencing factor of emotion.
The definition of what we want to measure is the first and
most prominent step. Next step is to confine our
measurement, by taking into account the following issues:
• Consciousness: Emotion research is susceptible to the
risk to be focused on subjective emotional experience
[26]. On the other hand, an accurate evaluation of
what is felt can only come from the subject itself [36].
There is still a debate between scientists, about the
degree of consciousness when experiencing emotions
[7], if cognitive appraisal is a necessary pre-condition
for affective arousal, or not [26]. As a result, there is a
hesitance if we can assess emotions by simply asking:
“How do you feel” or by “What do you prefer”. More
scientists prefer not to ask at all. They “plug” human
subjects into sensors, and start measuring their
physiological reactions.
• Duration: An emotional experience can last for only a
couple of seconds up to several hours or even longer.
Emotions unfold over time, and yet individuals are
Abstract—Affective or Emotion oriented computing constitutes
an emerging research field that is still in its early stages. The
lack of empirical results together with the complexity that
attributes emotions, subjects research to a diversity of theories,
models and tools. In the current paper we present a critical
review of the state of the art on emotion measurement models,
methods and tools and we suggest some informal rules towards
their realistic use in education settings.
Keywords: Emotion, affect, affective computing, emotion
measurement, detection, models, tools
I. INTRODUCTION
Emotions and affectivity in learning technology is a hot
topic in the research agenda. Numerous studies are
struggling to reliably collect information about students
emotions and the so called “emotional cartography” [3]. And
although there have been already some promising results we
are still in the first steps of this new field [2].
The quiver of tools that measure emotions has been
enhanced by the advancement of Intelligent Computing and
Neuroscience. Today’s instruments range from simple penand-paper rating scales to dazzling high-tech equipment that
measures brain waves or eye movements [8]. There are not
however, so far, adequate empirically proven strategies to
address the appropriateness of each method in relation to the
measurement’s needs and singularities.
In the current paper we are moving to that direction. In
section II, we present models and theories for basic emotion
and emotional dimension approach of emotion research,
based on previous work [11]. In section III, we extend more
in depth our review on emotion measurement models and
tools, and we identify advantages and drawbacks of each
method depending on the application context, time, cost, etc.
In section IV, we provide some informal rules towards their
auspicious implementation.
II. EMOTION MEASUREMENT THEORY
Despite the few attempts to understand and define
emotion, literature is still lacking from a widely acceptable
definition to discriminate it from affect or mood. In line with
Davou [7] and Zimmernann [36], we suggest the following
discrimination:
978-0-7695-4579-0/11 $26.00 В© 2011 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/INCoS.2011.82
807
likely to differ dramatically in the time to recover
from a negative emotion, such as anger [34].
Measurement has to be either precise (capturing
emotion signals by using sensors) or retrospective (by
using self-reporting) [36].
• Distinction: Although it is quite clear to humans of
what they usually feel, it is difficult however to find
the correct word-tokens to express it. “Everyone
knows what (emotion) is until they are asked to
define it” [20]. Emotions constitute a rather primary,
non-verbal way of communication. They are stored in
cell constellations that have been significantly
developed in human’s early years, when their verbal
system didn’t even exist. From three months after
conception until five-years-old, human’s emotional
repertoire has almost complete its mature cycle [20].
Scherer [31] has distinguished three major schools of
emotion research: the basic emotion, the emotional
dimension, and the eclectic approach. We focus on the first
two and we are presenting models and theories for each
category.
humiliated-proud) that may arise in the course of
learning together with a four quadrant model, relating
phases of learning to positive and negative emotions
(dimension of valence).
Figure 1: Affective Circumplex Model [14]
A. Basic Emotions
Patterns are equivalent with basic emotions that can be
easily recognised universally. The list of models and theories
that examine basic emotions is quite long [12]. In a
preliminary study [12], our attempt to classify fundamental
models and theories of basic emotion, resulted in ten basic
emotions: anger, happiness, fear, sadness, surprise, disgust
and love, anticipation, joy and trust.
Figure 2: Learning Cycle Model [17]
• Csikszentmihalyi [5] has identified a zone, where
most of the people have concentrated their attention
so intensely on solving a problem or doing things that
they lose track of time. Such flow is optimal
experience that leads to happiness and creativity. If a
task is not challenging enough, boredom sets in, while
too great a challenge results in anxiety, and both cases
result in task, and thus learning, avoidance. Steels
[32] developed an architecture that conceptualises
flow.
B. Emotional Dimensions
In the literature, learning theories and models usually
adopt the following dimensions [16]:
• Arousal (deactivating/activating)
• Valence (negative/positive)
• Intensity (low–intense)
• Duration (short–long)
• Frequency of its occurrence (seldom–frequent)
• Time dimension (retrospective like relief, actual like
enjoyment, prospective like hope).
Researchers are striving to combine the above
dimensions in a multi-dimensional emotional space that
accurately projects subject’s emotion experience. Below we
refer to three widely accepted and used models:
• Russell’s [29] two-dimension “circumplex model of
affect” has served as a fundamental emotional model
for many subsequent theories in emotion research.
According to his model, emotions are seen as
combinations of arousal (high activation/low
activation) and valence (positive/negative).
• Kort and Reilly [18] have developed a model of a
learning cycle that integrates affect, providing a
framework about the role of emotions in learning.
They have suggested six possible emotion axes
(anxiety-confidence, ennui-fascination, frustrationeuphoria, dispirited-enthusiasm, terror –excitement,
Figure 3: Architecture of Flow [32]
808
2) Non-Verbal Self-Reporting: It includes unobtrusive,
language-independent tools that can be used in different
cultures. They claimed to be less subjective than verbal
self-report instruments [8], because they are not limited
by student’s vocabulary. On the other hand the range of
emotions that they can assess is limited.
a) Self-Assessment Manikin-SAM [19]: Non-verbal scale
that is used to rate the dimensions of valence, arousal
and dominance.
b) PrEmo [8]: Non-verbal self-report instrument that
measures a set of 14 emotions, 7 pleasant (i.e. desire,
pleasant surprise, inspiration, amusement, admiration,
satisfaction, fascination), and 7 unpleasant (i.e.
indignation, contempt, disgust, unpleasant surprise,
dissatisfaction, disappointment, and boredom).
c) International Affective Picture System [17]: It
provides a large set of standardized, emotionallyevocative, internationally-accessible, color photographs that includes contents across a wide range of
semantic categories.
III. EMOTION MEASUREMENT TOOLS
Emotion measurement tools can be grouped into three
areas [36]: Psychological, Physiological and Behavioral.
Each group has its strengths and weaknesses and the final
choice depends on the educational settings (in lab, learning,
class, test), the issues of measurement we want to cope with
(consciousness, duration, distinction), the time and money
that we are able to spent, and in some cases, the independent
variables we wish to investigate (gender, student’s academic
level, location of residence, parents’ educational level, etc.).
In the majority of the studies, multimodal integration is
preferred (combination of the three methods).
A. Psychological tools Psychological (self-reporting)
They originate from Clinical Psychology and employ
verbal and non-verbal descriptions of emotions. They are
inexpensive tools that measure the subjective experience of
emotions in an unobtrusive and non-invasive. It is the only
way to measure user’s subjective feelings, although users are
often reluctant to disclose their inner feelings to researchers
in order to avoid embarrassment [35]. They cannot be easily
used in parallel with the user task, only in very specific cases
where mannequins and imaginaries are used for quick and
short answers. Further classification includes:
1) Verbal Self-Reporting: Subjects report on their emotions
with the use of questionnaires with pre-defined, openended questions, verbal rating scales or verbal protocols.
Also interviews, conductive chat and logbooks (like an
emotion diary) are used, so that subjects could indicate
their affective state in their own words. They can be
assembled to represent any set of emotions or mixed
emotions [8]. They meet language and cultural barriers
though [35].
Examples:
a) The Academic Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ): It is
developed by Pekrun et al. [24] is a likert type
questionnaire and has 5 degree ranging from (1)
Strongly Agree to (5) Strongly Disagree. It is used to
measure the academic emotions (anger, anxiety,
hopelessness, shame, joy, hope, pride, boredom) and
more specifically: 77 items of the questionnaire
measure academic emotions about learning, 84 items
about test and 81 items about class. The higher score
taken from each factor shows that the student has the
academic emotion related to that factor.
b) The Semantic Differential Scale [23]: The respondent
is asked to choose between two bipolar adjectives, e.g.
unhappy-happy. It measures valence, arousal and
dominance dimensions.
c) The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-PANAS
[34]: It includes 20 items of 5-likert scales, providing
assessment of positive and negative affect.
d) The Affect Grid [30]: A two-dimensional model
(valence, arousal), that has been designed to assess
core affect by positioning a cross in a 9 x 9 grid. The
more central the cross, the weaker their affective
experience. It allows for easy, very fast and repeated
assessments.
B. Psychological tools Physiological (use of sensors)
By using sensors, scientists are able to measure subject’s
physiological reactions. Usually, the subject’s affective state
is projected in an emotional space, determined by emotional
dimensions (arousal, intensity, control etc.). Research
findings, however, have shown that they are more reliable
for arousal than for emotional valence [36]. Most of these
measures based on recordings of electrical signals produced
by brain, heart, muscles, and skin. For example:
1) Electromyogram (EMG) that measures muscle activity.
2) Electroencephalography (EEG) that measures brain
activity.
Figure 4: EMG and EEG [1]
3) Electrodermal Activity or Skin Conductance (EDA or
SC) that measures the hydration in the epidermis and
dermis of the skin. It is typically recorded from the
surface of the hand or wrists.
4) Electrocardiogram (EKG or ECG) that measures heart
activity (heart rate, inter-beat-interval, heart rate
variability).
Figure 5: EDA [27] and ECG [13]
809
5) Electrooculogram (EOG) measuring eye pupil’s size
and movement.
linked to six basic emotions: (anger, disgust, fear, joy,
sadness, and surprise).
2) Voice modulation/intonation: Sound features like pitch,
tempo-rythm, volume, modulation, intonation, vibration
are used to differentiate affective states.
3) Hand tracking-Body posture that can be analysed
through observation with the help of video-recording or
by using special devices like the Body Posture
Measurement System (BPMS), developed by Tekscan
[28].
4) Mouse-keyboard movements by recording data (mouse
movements, buttons pressed, idle time e.t.c.) from log
files or by using special devices like pressure-force
sensitive mouse and keyboard.
Figure 6: EOG [1]
6) Blood Volume Pulse (BVP) measures blood pressure.
Figure 7: Hand and Head BVP [22]
7) Respiration, where rate of respiration and depth of
breath are the most common measures.
Figure 9: Posture analysis seat and IBM BlueEyes video camera [28]
5) Corrugator’s activity that in combination with the
activity of the zygomaticus muscle can give us
information about subject’s valence.
Motor-Behavioural tools can pick up emotion cues that
cannot be measured by self-reporting or physiological
signals. However, they require experience and objectivity
from the observer. These methods are tested almost
exclusively on “produced” affect expressions. Recognition
accuracy would drop heavily in natural situations.
Furthermore, video cameras are considered obtrusive [35].
Figure 8: Measuring respiration [1]
Physiological sensors provide an objective measure of
physiological signals. A substantial advantage of psychophysiological measures is that they provide continuous
monitoring of user state and, usually, are not disruptive of
task performance [24]. A major pitfall is that they are often
obtrusive or even invasive, troubling user’s experience with
the interface. Furthermore, they necessitate specialised and
frequently expensive equipment and technical expertise to
run the equipment [35]. Moreover, because of the sensitivity
of the sensors to confounding factors (e.g. heat, lighting),
they have blamed to produce noisy data.
D. Measuring Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
In the literature, emotion and learning has been mainly
ascribed by the term Emotion Intelligence (EQ). Different
trends in EQ have led to the development of various
instruments for the assessment of the construct, and while
some of these measures may overlap, most researchers agree
that they tap different constructs. EQ measurement can be
divided into two trends [10]:
1) The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) which is reliant to the work of Peter Salovey
and John Mayer. The MSCEIT based on a series of
emotion-based problem-solving items and it measures
four EQ types of abilities:
a) Perceiving emotions: The ability to detect and
identify emotions.
b) Using emotions: The ability to harness emotions
c) Understanding emotions: The ability to comprehend
emotion language and to appreciate complicated
relationships among emotions.
d) Managing emotions: The ability to regulate
emotions in both ourselves and in others.
The updated MSCEIT V2.0 [21] includes 141-item
scales.
C. Motor-Behavioural
Motor-behaviour expression is the most common way
humans employ to evaluate one’s affective state in everyday
life [36]. These tools measure behavioural expressions and
changes in physical body states that communicate one’s
emotion experience. Their major asset is that they provide
the ability to evaluate subject’s affective state by using
traditional devices like a PC camera or a microphone, or the
traditional mouse and keyboard, though special software is
needed [36]. This area also uses sensors that are less
obtrusive and invasive and more discreet than the
physiological tool. For example:
1) Facial expressions: For example, the Facial Action
Coding System [9] analyses 44 face muscles that are
810
2) Social and Emotional Learning-SEL that is based on the
writing of Daniel Goleman [15]. The SEL Competencies
assessment tools evaluate five core SEL competencies,
namely self-awareness, self-management, social
awareness,
responsible
decision-making
and
relationship/social skills.
In the Compendium of SEL and Associated Assessment
Measures [4], more than 50 tools that assess SEL of
preschool and elementary school students (i.e. 5-10
years old) are reviewed, along with aspects of the
contexts in which they learn and their learning
behaviours. Additionally, CASEL has published a Safeand-sound guide that reviews 242 health, prevention,
and positive youth development programs to assist
schools in choosing SEL programs that best meet their
needs [4].
Another rule states that sensors are mostly preferred
when evaluating the impact of negative emotions, e.g. in
stress, fear conditions. Neuroscience has proven that
negative emotions such as fear or anger are triggered before
the Pre-Frontal Cortex has even received the signal to be
processed [6]. Human brain is able to sense fear before
human can think of it [15]. The short duration of emotions
(especially the negative ones) indicate the use of sensors, in
contrast with the long-lasting mood that can be examined
through self-reporting.
The main drawbacks of sensors that capture
physiological signals are that they are obtrusive or even
invasive. They have designed mostly for lab experiments and
they lack of “ecological” validity, although less intrusive
methods of gathering physiological data are being developed.
The association between physiological measures and
“traditional” methods can offer interesting solutions, like for
example the use of sensors embedded in an office chair to
detect heart rate, sensors in glasses to detect facial muscle
activity, sensors in a computer mouse to collect measures of
skin temperature [24], computer bracelet for SC or emotion
sensitive pendant for heart rate. MIT has developed a series
of wearable computers, enabling measurement devices to be
deployed comfortably without encumbering daily activity
(e.g. iCalm” sensor can be easily worn in daily life to
wirelessly gather electrodermal, temperature, and motion
data) [26].
IV. DISCUSSION
Emotions have a stigma in science as they are believed to
be inherently non-scientific [26], and there is one reason for
that: How real are subjects’ reactions when they know that
they are taking part in a lab experiment that is trying to
explore their deep emotional thoughts? Literature has
produced successful studies where students’ affective states
have been evaluated with high accuracy [2, 3]. Nevertheless,
affect detection by intelligent systems is still in its infancy
[28].
There is not a golden rule for which method or tool is
more suitable, in which context and when is better to be
applied. A fundamental criterion is the availability of
resources. Sensors are more precise but cost more money and
time. Self-reporting on the other hand is free of charge but
usually out of context. One informal rule is that selfreporting is more suitable when investigating the impact of
discreet basic or secondary emotions or affective states.
Sensors that capture physiological and motor-behavioural
signals can be more beneficial to project affective states into
emotional dimensions.
Data validity posits that measurements have to be in
context, in parallel with the task without interrupting
student’s flow of interaction [36]. However, self-reporting is
mostly taking place right before or after the task, except from
cases where non-verbal tools provide short answers, without
diverting the user’s attention to aspects irrelevant to the task.
Brevity in assessment allows minimized disruption of
associated task performance and can be more easily
accommodated in repeated measure research designs [25].
Subjective feelings can only be measured through selfreport. Non-verbal self-reporting constitutes a more studentfriendly way (emoticons and mannequins are often used by
today adolescents), which can be easily applied in class or in
school labs as it requires short answers that do not consume
much task time. Self-reports can evaluate a minimum range
of emotions, though. Verbal questions can be used when
there is not time limit, while studying at home for example,
or in the form of pre and post test. In some cases we need
students to indicate their affective state in their own words.
The subjectivity of this method can be mitigated through
indirect questions [35].
V. CONCLUSION
It is possible to measure almost anything, but the concern
is whether the measure is meaningful, useful and valid [36].
We have tried a critical review on the state of the art of
emotion measurement models, methods and tools. We have
also proposed some informal rules towards their realistic use
in education settings. Future work entails the implementation
of case studies to refine the presented framework.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been partially supported by the European
Commission under the Collaborative Project ALICE
"Adaptive Learning via Intuitive/Interactive, Collaborative
and Emotional Systems", VII Framework Programme,
Theme ICT-2009.4.2 (Technology-Enhanced Learning),
Grant Agreement n.257639.
REFERENCES
[1] ADI Instruments, retrieved August 3rd, 2011 from
http://www.adinstruments.com/.
[2] I. Arroyo, D. Cooper, W. Burleson, B. P. Woolf, K. Muldner,
and R. Christopherson, “Emotion sensors go to school,” Proc.
of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in
Education (AIED), July 6th-10th, 2009, Brighton, UK, IOS
Press, p. 17-24.
[3] R. Calvo, “Incorporating affect into educational design
patterns and technologies,” Proc. of the 9th IEEE international
conference on advanced learning technologies, July 14-18,
Riga, Latvia, 2009.
[4] Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning,
retrieved August 3rd, 2011 from http://www.casel.org/.
811
[5] M. Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow: The psychology of optimal
experience,” New York: Harper and Row, 1990.
[6] R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, and H. H. Goldsmith,
“Handbook of Affective Sciences,” Oxford: Univ. Press,
2003.
[7] B. Davou, “Interaction of emotion and cognition in the
processing of textual material,” Meta:journal des traducteurs /
Meta: Translators’ Journal, Vol. 52, No 1, 2007, p. 37-47.
[8] P. M. A. Desmet, “Measuring emotions: Development and
application of an instrument to measure emotional responses
to products,” In M.A. Blythe, A.F. Monk, K. Overbeeke, and
P.C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.
[9] P. Ekman, and W.V. Friesen, “Facial Action Coding System:
A technique for the measurement of facial movement,” Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1978.
[10] Emotional intelligence (Wikipedia), retrieved August 3rd,
2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/.
[11] M. Feidakis, and T. Daradoumis, “A five-layer approach in
collaborative learning systems design with respect to
emotion,” Proc. of the International Conference On Intelligent
Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCOS 2010),
Thessaloniki, Greece, 2010.
[12] M. Feidakis, T. Daradoumis, & S. Caballé, “Endowing erd
learning systems with emotion awareness,” Proc. of the 3
International Conference on Networking and Collaborative
Systems (INCOS), Fukuoka, Japan Nov 30- Dec 2, 2011
(submitted for publication).
[13] Find me a cure, retrieved August 3rd, 2011 from
http://findmeacure.com
[14] L. Feldman-Barrett, and J. A. Russell, “Independence and
bipolarity in the structure of current affect,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, 1998, pp. 967–
984.
[15] D. Goleman, “Emotional intelligence,” New York: Bantam
Books, 1995.
[16] T. Hascher, “Learning and emotion: perspectives for theory
and research,” European Educational Research Journal, Vol.
9, 2010, pp. 13-28.
[17] International Affective Picture System, retrieved August 3rd,
2011 from http://csea.phhp.ufl.edu/
[18] B. Kort, and R. Reilly, “Analytical models of emotions,
learning and relationships: towards an affect-sensitive
cognitive machine,” Proc. of the International Conference on
Virtual Worlds and Simulation (VWSim), San Antonio,
Texas, 2002.
[19] P. J. Lang, “Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral
assessment: Computer applications,” In: Sidowski, J.B.,
Johnson, J.H., Williams, T.A. (Eds.). Technology in mental
health care delivery systems, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1980, pp.
119-l37.
[20] J. E. LeDoux, “The emotional brain: the mysterious
underpinnings of emotional life,” New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1996.
[21] J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, D. R. Caruso, and G. Sitarenios,
“Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0,”
Emotion, Vol. 3, 2003, pp.97-105.
[22] Mind Media B.V. retrieved August 3rd, 2011 from
http://www.mindmedia.nl
[23] A. Mehrabian, and J A. Russell, “An approach to
environmental psychology,” Cambridge, MA, USA; London,
UK: MIT Press, 1974.
[24] R. Pekrun, T. Goetz, A. C. Frenzel, and R. P. Perry,
“Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance:
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
812
the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ),”
Contemporary Educational Psychology, Elsevier, Vol. 36,
Issue 1, 2011, p. 36-48.
P. Petta, C. Pelachaud, and R. Cowie, “Emotion-Oriented
systems: The Humaine handbook,” Berlin: Springer ed.
ISBN: 3642151833, 2011
R. W. Picard, “Affective computing,” Cambridge MA, USA:
MIT Press, 1997.
R. W. Picard, “Emotion research by the people, for the
people,” Cambridge MA, USA: MIT Press, 2010.
R. W. Picard, S. Papert, W. Bender, B. Blumberg, C.
Breazeal, D. Cavallo, T. Machover, M. Resnick, D. Roy, & C.
Strohecker, “Affective Learning-a manifesto,” BT
Technology Journal, Vol. 22, 2004, pp.253-269.
J. A. Russell, “A circumplex model of affect,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39, 1980, pp.1161–
1178.
J. A. Russell, A. Weiss, and G. A. Mendelsohn, “Affect Grid:
A single item scale of pleasure and arousal,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57, No 3, 1989, pp.
493-502.
K. R. Scherer, “Which emotions can be induced by music?
What are the underlying mechanisms? And how can we
measure them?” Journal of New Music Research: Vol. 33,
Issue 3, 2005, pp. 239-251.
L. Steels, “An Architecture of Flow,” In: M. Tokoro and L.
Steels. A Learning Zone of One's Own. Amsterdam: IOS
Press, 2004, pp. 137-150.
P. Verduyn, I. Van Mechelen, & F. Tuerlinckx, “The relation
between event processing and the duration of emotional
experience,” Emotion, Vol 11, No 1, Feb 2011, pp. 20-28.
D. Watson, & A. Tellegen, “Toward a consensual structure of
mood,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 98, 1985, pp. 219–235.
M. Wong, “Emotion assessment in evaluation of affective
interfaces,” Master thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada, 2006.
P. G. Zimmermann, “Beyond usability-Measuring aspects of
user experience,” Doctoral dissertation, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zurich, 2008.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
26
Размер файла
358 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа