AnnoSense: A Framework for Physiological Emotion Data Collection in Everyday Settings for AI

Ankush Gupta; Mohan Kumar; Pragya Singh; Pushpendra Singh

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 174 references

AnnoSense: A Framework for Physiological Emotion Data Collection in Everyday Settings for AI

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read AnnoSense introduces 15 expert-evaluated guidelines for collecting well-annotated emotion data from wearables and phones in everyday life, derived from 119 stakeholders and reviewed by 25 emotion AI experts.

desk verdict A genuinely new, stakeholder-grounded 15-guideline framework whose main weakness is the expert-opinion evaluation standing in for evidence of real-world impact. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02680 v1 pith:36FLXNQL submitted 2025-07-17 cs.HC cs.AI

Pragya Singh , Ankush Gupta , Mohan Kumar , Pushpendra Singh This is my paper

classification cs.HCcs.AI

keywords emotionannotationAIphysiologicalsignalswearabledeviceseverydaydatacollectionqualitativestakeholderstudydesignguidelinesmentalhealth

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to fix a bottleneck in emotion AI: algorithms that infer feelings from wearable and phone data are only as good as the labels attached to that data, and current labeling practice, whether lab studies with fixed scales or brief in-the-moment prompts in daily life, captures too little context and wears participants out. AnnoSense is presented as the answer: 15 actionable guidelines, grouped into pre-, during-, and post-data collection phases, that tell researchers how to recruit, train, profile, prompt, support, and validate participants so the resulting annotations are richer and more honest. The guidelines are grounded in 75 survey responses, 32 interviews with members of the public, and 3 focus groups with 12 mental health professionals, then rated by 25 emotion AI experts on clarity, usefulness, and adaptability. What the paper establishes is that such a stakeholder-grounded protocol can be built and receives positive expert review; it does not yet show that following the protocol yields datasets that train better AI models.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the guideline set itself: 15 prescriptive items (G1-G15) organized into three phases, pre-data collection (G1-G6), during-data collection (G7-G11), and post-data collection (G12-G15). The argument that makes the framework credible has two moving parts: a qualitative pipeline that converts stakeholder testimony into guidelines, using inductive thematic analysis of 75 surveys, 32 interviews, and 3 focus group discussions; and an evaluation protocol adapted from heuristic evaluation, in which 25 emotion AI experts scored each guideline for clarity, usefulness, and adaptability on a 5-point Likert scale and gave open-ended suggestions used to revise the guidelines.

What would settle it

Run the comparison the paper omits: over the same period, two matched groups of participants log their emotions with wearable sensors, one group under a standard ecological-momentary-assessment protocol and one under a protocol built from the AnnoSense guidelines. If the AnnoSense group does not show higher annotation completion, lower dropout, and labels that are at least as reliable and that train downstream emotion-recognition models at least as accurately, the central claim that the framework improves everyday emotion data collection fails. No such trial appears in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is the AnnoSense framework itself, which it claims is the first set of guidelines tailored specifically to real-world emotion data collection that has been evaluated. The framework's 15 guidelines (G1-G15) organize the entire data-collection pipeline: before collection, select and screen participants (including screening for alexithymia, the difficulty identifying and expressing emotions), obtain informed consent, calibrate devices, train participants in emotion labeling, and build detailed psycho-social and demographic profiles; during collection, preserve participant agency over prompt timing and annotation frequency, use those profiles to trigger participant-aware sampling, offer annotation methods that flex between quick scales and open-ended reflection based on emotional intensity, add multi-perspective assessments from trusted others and extra data streams, and keep participants engaged with learning and support; after collection, handle data securely with review and deletion rights, validate and normalize quality, ground labels holistically by combining qualitative and quantitative signals with psychosocial context, and share findings, limitations, and intended AI uses. Each guideline is tied to observations from the stakeholder data, and the expert evaluation rated the guidelines predominantly Good or Excellent on clarity, usefulness, and adaptability, with no Poor ratings.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that what stakeholders say they want, and what experts rate highly on a questionnaire, predicts how well a real data-collection protocol built on those guidelines will work when it is actually deployed in the field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Research teams that adopt AnnoSense would screen participants for alexithymia and other conditions before collecting physiological emotion data, which the paper argues will reduce a known source of noisy labels.
Annotation interfaces built to G7-G9 would let participants switch between scale-based and open-ended reporting depending on emotional intensity, producing datasets that combine quick ratings with rich contextual descriptions.
Validation under G13-G14 would move away from single-source labels toward triangulated labels that weight self-reports, physiological signals, and peer or expert input by reliability, with confidence scores attached.
Published datasets following G15 would document intended AI applications and data limitations as standard practice, addressing the reproducibility problems the paper identifies in current lab and real-life datasets.
If AnnoSense becomes a default protocol, emotion data collection shifts from one-way, scale-driven prompts toward a participant-centered model in which agency, training, and support are part of the data pipeline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A head-to-head field trial is the missing test: two matched groups collecting emotion data over the same weeks, one on a standard ecological-momentary-assessment protocol and one on AnnoSense, comparing completion rates, label reliability, dropout, and downstream model performance, would directly test whether the framework delivers its promised benefit.
The framework's context-rich labels imply a data format that today's emotion-recognition benchmarks are not built to consume, so widespread adoption would likely push the field toward new modeling conventions, such as learning from weighted multi-source labels rather than discrete categories.
Because all 119 stakeholders shared one country and a tech-literate profile, the guidelines' portability across cultures and literacy levels remains open; the paper's own limitation section concedes this, and testing G1-G6 in other populations would show which items are universal and which are local.
The framing in which each person's emotions are constructed from personal history and context sits in tension with training a single general model to map physiology to emotion; if the framework works as intended, it may push emotion AI toward personalized models and away from universal labels.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

AnnoSense does something real: it turns 119 stakeholder voices into 15 concrete, phase-organized guidelines for collecting physiological emotion data in the wild. The derivation is traceable — survey and interview themes lead to specific G1-G15 entries — and the methods write-up is unusually thorough for this kind of paper: piloting, consistency checks, open-ended response quality stats, thematic analysis steps. The authors also tell you where their sample is weak, and the limitation paragraph (Section 7) matches what a skeptic would say.

The soft spot is the evaluation. Twenty-five experts rate the guidelines on clarity, usefulness, and adaptability, and that rating is treated as evidence that AnnoSense improves real-world emotion data collection. It doesn't show that. Stated preferences and Likert scores do not establish that following G5 or G9 boosts annotation quality, response rates, or downstream model accuracy. There is no field trial, no baseline, and no inter-rater reliability on the coding. The stress-test is right that this is the load-bearing gap. But it is a gap of degree: this is a framework proposal, not an effectiveness claim. The genre expects a first-pass evaluation, and stakeholder grounding plus expert feedback is a reasonable first pass. The abstract's 'can enhance' should be softened to 'can inform' or 'may support', and the authors should acknowledge that the value proposition is still a hypothesis.

The overlap with the authors' earlier participant-perspective paper [138] deserves a sentence explaining what AnnoSense adds beyond it. That said, the citation pattern here is not abusive; self-citation in a research programme is normal.

Bottom line: if I needed to design an everyday emotion data collection study, these guidelines would be on the table. That is the real value. The paper is not a proof that the system works, but it is an honest, detailed synthesis of stakeholder needs plus a plausible expert-checked checklist. I'd send it to review; it belongs in the conversation at UbiComp or IMWUT. I'd ask for the causal language to be moderated and an explicit future-work commitment to a deployment comparison. No desk reject.

Who for: affective computing, UbiComp, mobile mental health researchers. Reading group: maybe, if there's appetite for a long methods-focused piece. Cite: yes, as methodological reference. Serious thinker: yes.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AnnoSense, a framework of 15 action-oriented guidelines for collecting and annotating physiological emotion data in everyday settings for AI. The guidelines are derived from qualitative data gathered from 75 survey respondents, 32 semi-structured interviews with members of the public, and 3 focus groups with 12 mental health professionals. The framework spans pre-, during-, and post-data collection phases. It is subsequently evaluated by 25 emotion-AI experts who rated each guideline on clarity, usefulness, and adaptability via 5-point Likert scales. The paper also proposes prototype interface directions and discusses implications for future emotion-AI data collection.

Significance. If positioned appropriately, AnnoSense is a substantive methodological contribution to UbiComp, HCI, and affective computing. The manuscript is unusually transparent for a qualitative study: it reports piloting of instruments, consistency checks, a response-quality table, detailed demographic tables, and stepwise thematic-analysis procedures. The 119-stakeholder corpus is substantial for a guideline-generation study, and most guidelines are traceable to quoted participant or expert statements. The expert evaluation, although based on expert perception rather than outcome measurement, is a defensible heuristic-evaluation step. The main gap is that the framework's practical payoff—whether following AnnoSense improves annotation completeness, label reliability, participant compliance, or downstream model performance—is not measured, so the paper's claims of 'evaluated guidelines' and of 'enhancing' data collection need to be carefully scoped.

major comments (2)

[Sections 5 and 7] The evaluation consists solely of 25 experts' Likert ratings of guideline clarity, usefulness, and adaptability; there is no deployment, no baseline protocol, and no outcome measure such as annotation completeness, response rate, label reliability, or downstream AI model performance. Section 7, the Limitations section, discusses demographic and cultural sample limitations but does not state that the framework's effect on actual data-collection outcomes was never evaluated. Because the abstract and contributions say AnnoSense can 'enhance the collection and analysis of emotion data,' this missing causal link is load-bearing for the central claim of an 'evaluated' framework. My recommendation is to either (a) explicitly narrow the contribution to 'expert-evaluated' and add a limitations paragraph stating that the framework's causal impact on data quality has not been established, or (b) add a small field trial, a baseline comparison, or a post-hoc analysis of an existing deployment.
[Section 5, Figure 3] The paper reports only an aggregated figure for the expert ratings and asserts that the vast majority of ratings were 'Good' or 'Excellent.' No per-guideline descriptive statistics are provided, so the reader cannot verify uniformity of the positive reception, examine variability across the three phases, or identify weak guidelines. Please include a table with counts, percentages, or mean/SD for each of the 15 guidelines on clarity, usefulness, and adaptability, and note which guidelines, if any, received more than a trivial number of 'Average' or 'Fair' ratings.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1 and Table 14] The text states that the average completion rate for required open-ended questions was '85%,' but the values in Table 14 (Q4, Q5, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12) average to 86.7%. Also, Q4 is listed as required yet has a completion rate of only 54.7%; please reconcile these numbers or explain why this required question had such a low completion rate.
[Section 1 and Section 3.2] The terms 'objective methods' and 'subjective methods' are introduced with nonstandard definitions in Section 1, but the definitions are not repeated where the terms are used in the methodology. Please provide a short reminder or a cross-reference at first use in Sections 3.2 and 4 to avoid confusion with the conventional meaning of 'subjective' as self-report.
[Section 4.2.1, Figure 2] When reporting percentages such as 27.2% and 19.6% for annotation-method preferences, please state the denominator (N=75) and clarify whether the underlying question was single-choice or multi-choice, as this materially affects how the reader interprets the distribution.
[Tables 1 and 2 and Section 2.2] Dataset names are used inconsistently (e.g., 'GReX' vs. 'G-REx', 'Dairyhelper' vs. 'DiaryHelper'). Please standardize names across text and tables, including the reference list.
[Section 2.2 and References] The in-text citation 'Swain et al.' does not match the reference's lead author 'Das Swain' ([33]). Please align the in-text form with the reference entry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citations appear as background support, but the AnnoSense guidelines are derived from new qualitative data and expert ratings, not from the framework itself; no circular reduction.

full rationale

No circular derivation chain is present. The guidelines in Section 4 are explicitly derived from newly collected survey responses, interviews, and focus group discussions, as described in Section 3.4, and each guideline is tied to data observations in Sections 4.1-4.3. The Section 5 evaluation consists of expert Likert ratings of clarity, usefulness, and adaptability, which are judgments about the guidelines rather than a fitted parameter that the guidelines were constructed to reproduce. There is no equation or statistical procedure that equates an output with an input. The authors' self-citations [137], [138], and [139] appear in citation lists alongside independent references for background claims about data quality, annotation challenges, and limitations of lab datasets; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem, as the sole justification for a central premise, or as the source of the framework's content. The abstract's statement that AnnoSense has 'potential to enhance the collection and analysis of emotion data' is an extrapolation from expert ratings that is not validated by a deployment study, and Section 7 explicitly concedes the sample's cultural and educational homogeneity. That is a limitation on external validity and construct evidence, not a circularity. Accordingly, the paper is best characterized as self-contained in its derivation, with minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper makes no quantitative claims and fits no parameters. Its central artifact, AnnoSense, is an invented conceptual entity rather than an empirical entity. The main axioms are domain assumptions about the validity of self-report and expert opinion as evidence for design efficacy. No standard mathematical axioms are needed.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Theory of Constructed Emotion (Barrett) is an appropriate theoretical lens for emotion in everyday data collection.
Invoked in Section 1 to define emotion; this lens shapes the survey and interview questions and the framework's emphasis on context-dependent labels.
domain assumption Stated preferences of convenience-sampled, same-country, mostly educated participants can be generalized into design guidelines for diverse populations.
Underlies the transformation of survey, interview, and FGD data into guidelines in Section 4; Section 7 concedes this may not generalize to lower-literacy or less tech-savvy groups.
domain assumption Expert Likert ratings of clarity, usefulness, and adaptability are a valid measure of framework quality.
Section 5 treats 25 experts' ratings as the framework's evaluation; there is no field trial linking those ratings to data quality or user engagement outcomes.
domain assumption Individual guidelines can be adopted without harmful interactions between them.
The framework lists 15 guidelines in parallel but does not test combined effects, such as the cost of intensive psycho-social profiling plus frequent training on participant burden.

invented entities (1)

AnnoSense framework
purpose: A 15-guideline methodology for collecting physiological emotion data and annotations in everyday settings, organized into pre, during, and post data collection phases.
The framework is the paper's central artifact. The only evidence offered for it is internal: stakeholder quotes, expert ratings, and design reasoning. There is no independent deployment or external benchmark yet, so independent_evidence is false.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AnnoSense: A Framework for Physiological Emotion Data Collection in Everyday Settings for AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36FLXNQL

@misc{pith2026250802680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AnnoSense: A Framework for Physiological Emotion Data Collection in Everyday Settings for AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36FLXNQL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02680}
}

read the original abstract

Emotional and mental well-being are vital components of quality of life, and with the rise of smart devices like smartphones, wearables, and artificial intelligence (AI), new opportunities for monitoring emotions in everyday settings have emerged. However, for AI algorithms to be effective, they require high-quality data and accurate annotations. As the focus shifts towards collecting emotion data in real-world environments to capture more authentic emotional experiences, the process of gathering emotion annotations has become increasingly complex. This work explores the challenges of everyday emotion data collection from the perspectives of key stakeholders. We collected 75 survey responses, performed 32 interviews with the public, and 3 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 12 mental health professionals. The insights gained from a total of 119 stakeholders informed the development of our framework, AnnoSense, designed to support everyday emotion data collection for AI. This framework was then evaluated by 25 emotion AI experts for its clarity, usefulness, and adaptability. Lastly, we discuss the potential next steps and implications of AnnoSense for future research in emotion AI, highlighting its potential to enhance the collection and analysis of emotion data in real-world contexts.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

174 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[138]

Pragya Singh, Ritvik Budhiraja, Pankaj Jalote, Mohan Kumar, and Pushpendra Singh. 2025. Translating Emotions to Annotations: A Participant’s Perspective of Physiological Emotion Data Collection. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 9, 2, Article CSCW195 (May 2025), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3711093

work page doi:10.1145/3711093 2025
[1]

Calm - Meditation and Sleep App

2024. Calm - Meditation and Sleep App. https://www.calm.com

2024
[2]

Daylio - Mood Tracker and Diary

2024. Daylio - Mood Tracker and Diary. https://daylio.net

2024
[3]

Headspace - Mindfulness and Meditation App

2024. Headspace - Mindfulness and Meditation App. https://www.headspace.com

2024
[4]

Woebot - Your Self-Care Expert

2024. Woebot - Your Self-Care Expert. https://woebothealth.com

2024
[5]

Wysa - Mental Health Support

2024. Wysa - Mental Health Support. https://www.wysa.io

2024
[6]

Alaa Abd-Alrazaq, Rawan AlSaad, Manale Harfouche, Sarah Aziz, Arfan Ahmed, Rafat Damseh, and Javaid Sheikh. 2023. Wearable artificial intelligence for detecting anxiety: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of medical Internet research 25 (2023), e48754

2023
[7]

Alaa Abd-Alrazaq, Rawan AlSaad, Farag Shuweihdi, Arfan Ahmed, Sarah Aziz, and Javaid Sheikh. 2023. Systematic review and meta-analysis of performance of wearable artificial intelligence in detecting and predicting depression. NPJ Digital Medicine 6, 1 (2023), 84

2023

Show all 174 references

[8]

Adler, Yuewen Yang, Thalia Viranda, Xuhai Xu, David C

Daniel A. Adler, Yuewen Yang, Thalia Viranda, Xuhai Xu, David C. Mohr, Anna R. Van Meter, Julia C. Tartaglia, Nicholas C. Jacobson, Fei Wang, Deborah Estrin, and Tanzeem Choudhury. 2024. Beyond Detection: Towards Actionable Sensing Research in Clinical Mental Healthcare. Proc....

2024 doi
[9]

Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, et al. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

2019
[11]

Emmi Antikainen, Anna Iashina, Iman Alikhani, and Mari Karsikas. 2024. How acute stress affects sleep: large-scale observations from continuous smart ring measurements in free-living conditions. In 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine a...

2024
[12]

Apple Inc. 2024. Apple Watch. Retrieved 2025-04-12 from https://www.apple.com/watch/

2024
[13]

David Bakker and Nikki Rickard. 2018. Engagement in mobile phone app for self-monitoring of emotional wellbeing predicts changes in mental health: MoodPrism. Journal of affective disorders 227 (2018), 432–442

2018
[14]

Swarnali Banik, Sougata Sen, Snehanshu Saha, and Surjya Ghosh. 2024. Towards Reducing Continuous Emotion Annotation Effort During Video Consumption: A Physiological Response Profiling Approach. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 8, 3, Article 91 (Sept. 2024)...

2024 doi
[15]

Lisa Feldman Barrett. 2017. How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain . Pan Macmillan

2017
[16]

Lisa Feldman Barrett, James Gross, Tamlin Conner Christensen, and Michael Benvenuto. 2001. Knowing what you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition & Emotion 15, 6 (2001), 713–724

2001
[17]

Kathy Baxter, Catherine Courage, and Kelly Caine. 2015. Understanding your users: a practical guide to user research methods . Morgan Kaufmann

2015
[18]

Maciej Behnke, Mikołaj Buchwald, Adam Bykowski, Szymon Kupiński, and Lukasz D Kaczmarek. 2022. Psychophysiology of positive and negative emotions, dataset of 1157 cases and 8 biosignals. Scientific Data 9, 1, 10

2022
[19]

Ananya Bhattacharjee, Dana Kulzhabayeva, Mohi Reza, Harsh Kumar, Eunchae Seong, Xuening Wu, Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Robert Bowman, Rachel Kornfield, Alex Mariakakis, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Munmun De Choudhury, Gavin Doherty, Mary P Czerwinski, and Joseph Jay Williams. 202...

2023
[20]

Aditya Bhattacharya, Simone Stumpf, and Katrien Verbert. 2024. Representation Debiasing of Generated Data Involving Domain Experts. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (Cagliari, Italy) (UMAP Adjunct ’24). Associat...

2024
[21]

Javad Birjandtalab, Diana Cogan, Maziyar Baran Pouyan, and Mehrdad Nourani. 2016. A Non-EEG Biosignals Dataset for Assessment and Visualization of Neurological Status. In 2016 IEEE International Workshop on Signal Processing Systems (SiPS) . 110–114. doi:10.1109/ Proc. ACM Int...

2016
[22]

Patrícia Bota, Joana Brito, Ana Fred, Pablo Cesar, and Hugo Silva. 2024. A real-world dataset of group emotion experiences based on physiological data. Scientific Data 11, 1 (2024), 116

2024
[24]

Gregory J Boyle. 1984. Reliability and validity of Izard’s differential emotions scale. Personality and individual Differences 5, 6 (1984), 747–750

1984
[25]

Margaret M Bradley and Peter J Lang. 1994. Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 25, 1, 49–59

1994
[26]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

2006
[27]

Matteo Busso, Andrea Bontempelli, Leonardo Javier Malcotti, Lakmal Meegahapola, Peter Kun, Shyam Diwakar, Chaitanya Nutakki, Marcelo Dario Rodas Britez, Hao Xu, Donglei Song, Salvador Ruiz Correa, Andrea-Rebeca Mendoza-Lara, George Gaskell, Sally Stares, Miriam Bidoglia, Amars...

2025
[28]

Hava Chaptoukaev, Valeriya Strizhkova, Michele Panariello, Bianca Dalpaos, Aglind Reka, Valeria Manera, Susanne Thümmler, Esma ISMAILOVA, Nicholas W., francois bremond, Massimiliano Todisco, Maria A Zuluaga, and Laura M. Ferrari. 2023. StressID: a Multimodal Dataset for Stress...

2023
[29]

Si Chen, Haocong Cheng, Jason Situ, and Yun Huang. 2023. Mirror Hearts: Exploring the (Mis-)Alignment between AI-Recognized and Self-Reported Emotions. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23). Assoc...

2023
[30]

Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis. The journal of positive psychology 12, 3 (2017), 297–298

2017
[31]

Shanley Corvite, Kat Roemmich, Tillie Ilana Rosenberg, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2023. Data Subjects’ Perspectives on Emotion Artificial Intelligence Use in the Workplace: A Relational Ethics Lens. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 124 (apr 2023), 38 pages. doi:10...

2023 doi
[32]

Jean Costa, François Guimbretière, Malte F Jung, and Tanzeem Choudhury. 2019. Boostmeup: Improving cognitive performance in the moment by unobtrusively regulating emotions with a smartwatch. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 3,...

2019
[33]

Vedant Das Swain, Victor Chen, Shrija Mishra, Stephen M Mattingly, Gregory D Abowd, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2022. Semantic gap in predicting mental wellbeing through passive sensing. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

2022
[34]

PMA Desmet. 2003. Measuring emotion. M. Blythe, A Monk, K. Overbeeke, & P (2003)

2003
[35]

Ellen Douglas-Cowie, Roddy Cowie, Ian Sneddon, Cate Cox, Orla Lowry, Margaret Mcrorie, Jean-Claude Martin, Laurence Devillers, Sarkis Abrilian, Anton Batliner, et al. 2007. The HUMAINE database: Addressing the collection and annotation of naturalistic and induced emotional dat...

2007
[36]

Maciej Dzieżyc, Joanna Komoszyńska, Stanisław Saganowski, Magda Boruch, Jakub Dziwiński, Katarzyna Jabłońska, Dominika Kunc, and Przemysław Kazienko. 2021. How to catch them all? Enhanced data collection for emotion recognition in the field. In 2021 IEEE International Conferen...

2021 arXiv
[37]

Paul Ekman. 1992. Are there basic emotions? (1992)

1992
[38]

Felix Engel, Alphonsus Keary, Kevin Berwind, Marco Xaver Bornschlegl, and Matthias Hemmje. 2017. The role of reproducibility in affective computing. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) . 2008–2014. doi:10.1109/BIBM. 2017.8217969

2017
[39]

Denzil Ferreira, Vassilis Kostakos, and Anind K Dey. 2015. AWARE: mobile context instrumentation framework.Frontiers in ICT 2 (2015), 6

2015
[40]

Fitbit, Inc. 2024. Fitbit Wearables. Retrieved 2025-04-12 from https://www.fitbit.com/global/us/products

2024
[41]

Nan Gao, Soundariya Ananthan, Chun Yu, Yuntao Wang, and Flora D Salim. 2023. Critiquing Self-report Practices for Human Mental and Wellbeing Computing at Ubicomp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15496 (2023). Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 9, No. 3, Arti...

2023 arXiv
[42]

Nan Gao, Mohammad Saiedur Rahaman, Wei Shao, and Flora D Salim. 2021. Investigating the Reliability of Self-report Data in the Wild: The Quest for Ground Truth. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2021 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proc...

2021
[43]

Garmin Ltd. 2024. Garmin Smartwatches. Retrieved 2025-04-12 from https://www.garmin.com/en-US/c/wearables/

2024
[44]

Surjya Ghosh, Niloy Ganguly, Bivas Mitra, and Pradipta De. 2021. Designing an Experience Sampling Method for Smartphone Based Emotion Detection. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 12, 4 (2021), 913–927. doi:10.1109/TAFFC.2019.2905561

2021
[45]

Surjya Ghosh, Bivas Mitra, and Pradipta De. 2020. Towards Improving Emotion Self-report Collection using Self-reflection. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20) . Association for Computing Machine...

2020
[46]

Google Inc. 2015. Paco: Personal Analytics Companion. https://code.google.com/archive/p/paco/

2015
[47]

Happify Research. 2025. Happify. https://www.happify.com/research/ Mobile application

2025
[48]

Mark G Haviland. 1996. Structure of the twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale.Journal of personality assessment 66, 1 (1996), 116–125

1996
[49]

Jennifer A Healey and Rosalind W Picard. 2005. Detecting stress during real-world driving tasks using physiological sensors. IEEE Transactions on intelligent transportation systems 6, 2 (2005), 156–166

2005
[50]

Alexander Heimerl, Pooja Prajod, Silvan Mertes, Tobias Baur, Matthias Kraus, Ailin Liu, Helen Risack, Nicolas Rohleder, Elisabeth André, and Linda Becker. 2023. ForDigitStress: A multi-modal stress dataset employing a digital job interview scenario. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07742

2023 arXiv
[51]

Blake Anthony Hickey, Taryn Chalmers, Phillip Newton, Chin-Teng Lin, David Sibbritt, Craig S McLachlan, Roderick Clifton-Bligh, John Morley, and Sara Lal. 2021. Smart devices and wearable technologies to detect and monitor mental health conditions and stress: A systematic revi...

2021
[52]

Kristina Höök. 2009. Affective loop experiences: designing for interactional embodiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 1535 (2009), 3585–3595

2009
[53]

Seyedmajid Hosseini, Raju Gottumukkala, Satya Katragadda, Ravi Teja Bhupatiraju, Ziad Ashkar, Christoph W Borst, and Kenneth Cochran. 2022. A multimodal sensor dataset for continuous stress detection of nurses in a hospital. Scientific Data 9, 1, 255

2022
[54]

Seyedmajid Hosseini, Raju Gottumukkala, Satya Katragadda, Ravi Teja Bhupatiraju, Ziad Ashkar, Christoph W Borst, and Kenneth Cochran. 2022. A multimodal sensor dataset for continuous stress detection of nurses in a hospital. Scientific Data 9, 1 (2022), 255

2022
[55]

Annika Howells, Itai Ivtzan, and Francisco Jose Eiroa-Orosa. 2016. Putting the ‘app’in happiness: a randomised controlled trial of a smartphone-based mindfulness intervention to enhance wellbeing. Journal of happiness studies 17 (2016), 163–185

2016
[56]

ilumivu. 2024. Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA) App. Retrieved 2025-07-15 from https://ilumivu.com/solutions/ecological- momentary-assessment-app/

2024
[57]

Inexika Inc. 2025. iMoodJournal – Mood Tracking Mobile Application. https://www.imoodjournal.com/

2025
[58]

Laura SF Israel and Felix D Schönbrodt. 2019. Emotion prediction with weighted appraisal models–Towards validating a psychological theory of affect. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 13, 2 (2019), 604–615

2019
[59]

Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi, Ali Memariani, and Shion Guha. 2023. The Principles of Data-Centric AI. Commun. ACM 66, 8 (July 2023), 84–92. doi:10.1145/3571724

2023 doi
[60]

Soowon Kang, Woohyeok Choi, Cheul Young Park, Narae Cha, Auk Kim, Ahsan Habib Khandoker, Leontios Hadjileontiadis, Heepyung Kim, Yong Jeong, and Uichin Lee. 2023. K-emophone: A mobile and wearable dataset with in-situ emotion, stress, and attention labels. Scientific data 10, 1, 351

2023
[61]

Soowon Kang, Cheul Young Park, Auk Kim, Narae Cha, and Uichin Lee. 2022. Understanding Emotion Changes in Mobile Experience Sampling. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Mac...

2022
[62]

Evangelos Karapanos. 2012. Beyond Experience Sampling: Evaluating Personal Informatics with Technology-Assisted Reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.1821 (2012)

2012 arXiv
[63]

Kleomenis Katevas, Hamed Haddadi, and Laurissa Tokarchuk. 2016. Sensingkit: Evaluating the sensor power consumption in ios devices. In 2016 12th International conference on intelligent environments (IE) . IEEE, 222–225

2016
[64]

I Didn’t Know I Looked Angry

Harmanpreet Kaur, Daniel McDuff, Alex C. Williams, Jaime Teevan, and Shamsi T. Iqbal. 2022. “I Didn’t Know I Looked Angry”: Characterizing Observed Emotion and Reported Affect at Work. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans...

2022
[65]

Jane Kaye, Edgar A Whitley, David Lund, Michael Morrison, Harriet Teare, and Karen Melham. 2015. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European journal of human genetics 23, 2 (2015), 141–146

2015
[66]

Abe Kazemzadeh, Sungbok Lee, Panayiotis G Georgiou, and Shrikanth S Narayanan. 2011. Emotion twenty questions: Toward a crowd-sourced theory of emotions. In International conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction . Springer, 1–10. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. W...

2011
[67]

Christina Kelley, Bongshin Lee, and Lauren Wilcox. 2017. Self-tracking for Mental Wellness: Understanding Expert Perspectives and Student Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association...

2017
[68]

Vassilis-Javed Khan, Panos Markopoulos, Berry Eggen, Wijnand IJsselsteijn, and Boris de Ruyter. 2008. Reconexp: a way to reduce the data loss of the experiencing sampling method. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devi...

2008
[70]

Taewan Kim, Seolyeong Bae, Hyun Ah Kim, Su-Woo Lee, Hwajung Hong, Chanmo Yang, and Young-Ho Kim. 2024. MindfulDiary: Harnessing Large Language Model to Support Psychiatric Patients’ Journaling. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24...

2024
[71]

Yubin Kim, Xuhai Xu, Daniel McDuff, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. 2024. Health-LLM: Large Language Models for Health Prediction via Wearable Sensor Data. arXiv:2401.06866 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06866

2024 arXiv
[72]

Thomas Kosch, Mariam Hassib, Robin Reutter, and Florian Alt. 2020. Emotions on the go: Mobile emotion assessment in real-time using facial expressions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces . 1–9

2020
[73]

Mohr, and Madhu Reddy

Kaylee Payne Kruzan, Ada Ng, Colleen Stiles-Shields, Emily G Lattie, David C. Mohr, and Madhu Reddy. 2023. The Perceived Utility of Smartphone and Wearable Sensor Data in Digital Self-tracking Technologies for Mental Health. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human F...

2023
[74]

Krzysztof Kutt, Dominika Drążyk, Laura Żuchowska, Maciej Szelążek, Szymon Bobek, and Grzegorz J Nalepa. 2022. BIRAFFE2, a multimodal dataset for emotion-based personalization in rich affective game environments. Scientific data 9, 1, 274

2022
[75]

Richard D Lane, Donald M Quinlan, Gary E Schwartz, Pamela A Walker, and Sharon B Zeitlin. 1990. The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale: A cognitive-developmental measure of emotion. Journal of personality assessment 55, 1-2 (1990), 124–134

1990
[76]

Matias Laporte, Martin Gjoreski, and Marc Langheinrich. 2023. LAUREATE: A Dataset for Supporting Research in Affective Computing and Human Memory Augmentation.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.7, 3, Article 106, 41 pages. doi:10.1145/3610892

2023 doi
[77]

Fanny Larradet, Radoslaw Niewiadomski, Giacinto Barresi, Darwin G Caldwell, and Leonardo S Mattos. 2020. Toward emotion recognition from physiological signals in the wild: approaching the methodological issues in real-life data collection. Frontiers in psychology 11 (2020), 1111

2020
[78]

Fanny Larradet, Radoslaw Niewiadomski, Giacinto Barresi, and Leonardo S Mattos. 2019. Appraisal theory-based mobile app for physiological data collection and labelling in the wild. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous...

2019
[79]

Lattie, Rachel Kornfield, Kathryn E

Emily G. Lattie, Rachel Kornfield, Kathryn E. Ringland, Renwen Zhang, Nathan Winquist, and Madhu Reddy. 2020. Designing Mental Health Technologies that Support the Social Ecosystem of College Students. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys...

2020
[80]

Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2017. Research methods in human-computer interaction . Morgan Kaufmann

2017
[81]

Richard S Lazarus. 1991. Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American psychologist 46, 8 (1991), 819

1991
[82]

Junze Li, Changyang He, Jiaxiong Hu, Boyang Jia, Alon Halevy, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. DiaryHelper: Exploring the Use of an Automatic Contextual Information Recording Agent for Elicitation Diary Study. arXiv:2404.19738 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19738

2024 arXiv
[83]

Kristen A Lindquist, Maria Gendron, Lisa Feldman Barrett, and Bradford C Dickerson. 2014. Emotion perception, but not affect perception, is impaired with semantic memory loss. Emotion 14, 2 (2014), 375

2014
[84]

Susanna Loeb, Susan Dynarski, Daniel McFarland, Pamela Morris, Sean Reardon, and Sarah Reber. 2017. Descriptive Analysis in Education: A Guide for Researchers. NCEE 2017-4023. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2017)

2017
[85]

Bhargavi Mahesh, Teena Hassan, Erwin Prassler, and Jens-Uwe Garbas. 2019. Requirements for a Reference Dataset for Multimodal Human Stress Detection. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops). 492–498. doi:10.1...

2019
[86]

Ruth Malkinson. 2010. Cognitive-behavioral grief therapy: The ABC model of rational-emotion behavior therapy. Psihologijske teme 19, 2 (2010), 289–305

2010
[87]

Valentina Markova, Todor Ganchev, and Kalin Kalinkov. 2019. CLAS: A Database for Cognitive Load, Affect and Stress Recognition. In 2019 International Conference on Biomedical Innovations and Applications (BIA) . 1–4. doi:10.1109/BIA48344.2019.8967457

2019
[88]

ACM Interact

Lakmal Meegahapola, William Droz, Peter Kun, Amalia de Götzen, Chaitanya Nutakki, Shyam Diwakar, Salvador Ruiz Correa, Donglei Song, Hao Xu, Miriam Bidoglia, George Gaskell, Altangerel Chagnaa, Amarsanaa Ganbold, Tsolmon Zundui, Carlo Caprini, Daniele Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. ...

2025
[89]

Kristof Meers, Egon Dejonckheere, Elise K Kalokerinos, Koen Rummens, and Peter Kuppens. 2020. mobileQ: A free user-friendly application for collecting experience sampling data. Behavior Research Methods 52 (2020), 1510–1515

2020
[90]

Merrill, Akshay Paruchuri, Naghmeh Rezaei, Geza Kovacs, Javier Perez, Yun Liu, Erik Schenck, Nova Hammerquist, Jake Sunshine, Shyam Tailor, Kumar Ayush, Hao-Wei Su, Qian He, Cory Y

Mike A. Merrill, Akshay Paruchuri, Naghmeh Rezaei, Geza Kovacs, Javier Perez, Yun Liu, Erik Schenck, Nova Hammerquist, Jake Sunshine, Shyam Tailor, Kumar Ayush, Hao-Wei Su, Qian He, Cory Y. McLean, Mark Malhotra, Shwetak Patel, Jiening Zhan, Tim Althoff, Daniel McDuff, and Xin...

2024 arXiv
[92]

MetricWire Inc. 2025. MetricWire. Retrieved 2025-04-12 from https://www.metricwire.com

2025
[93]

Mindsera. 2025. Mindsera: AI-powered journal for mental fitness. https://www.mindsera.com/

2025
[94]

Juan Abdon Miranda-Correa, Mojtaba Khomami Abadi, Nicu Sebe, and Ioannis Patras. 2021. AMIGOS: A Dataset for Affect, Personality and Mood Research on Individuals and Groups. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 12, 2 (April 2021), 479–493. doi:10.1109/ TAFFC.2018.2884461

2021
[95]

Varun Mishra, Byron Lowens, Sarah Lord, Kelly Caine, and David Kotz. 2017. Investigating contextual cues as indicators for EMA delivery. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Internat...

2017
[96]

Varun Mishra, Sougata Sen, Grace Chen, Tian Hao, Jeffrey Rogers, Ching-Hua Chen, and David Kotz. 2020. Evaluating the Reproducibility of Physiological Stress Detection Models. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 4, 4, Article 147 (Dec. 2020), 29 pages. doi:10...

2020 doi
[97]

Vivian Genaro Motti. 2019. Assistive wearables: opportunities and challenges. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (London, Unite...

2019
[98]

in the wild

Sujay Nagaraj, Sarah Goodday, Thomas Hartvigsen, Adrien Boch, Kopal Garg, Sindhu Gowda, Luca Foschini, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Stephen Friend, and Anna Goldenberg. 2023. Dissecting the heterogeneity of “in the wild” stress from multimodal sensor data. NPJ Digital Medicine 6, 1 (2023), 237

2023
[99]

Peter Neigel, Andrew Vargo, Benjamin Tag, and Koichi Kise. 2024. Using Wearables to Unobtrusively Identify Periods of Stress in a Real University Environment. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers . 17–24

2024
[100]

Subigya Nepal, Arvind Pillai, William Campbell, Talie Massachi, Eunsol Soul Choi, Xuhai Xu, Joanna Kuc, Jeremy F Huckins, Jason Holden, Colin Depp, et al. 2024. Contextual AI Journaling: Integrating LLM and Time Series Behavioral Sensing Technology to Promote Self-Reflection a...

2024
[101]

Heinz, Ashmita Kunwar, Eunsol Soul Choi, Xuhai Xu, Joanna Kuc, Jeremy F

Subigya Nepal, Arvind Pillai, William Campbell, Talie Massachi, Michael V. Heinz, Ashmita Kunwar, Eunsol Soul Choi, Xuhai Xu, Joanna Kuc, Jeremy F. Huckins, Jason Holden, Sarah M. Preum, Colin Depp, Nicholas Jacobson, Mary P. Czerwinski, Eric Granholm, and Andrew T. Campbell. ...

2024 doi
[102]

Matthew K Nock, Michelle M Wedig, Elizabeth B Holmberg, and Jill M Hooley. 2008. The emotion reactivity scale: development, evaluation, and relation to self-injurious thoughts and behaviors. Behavior therapy 39, 2 (2008), 107–116

2008
[103]

Ju Lynn Ong, TeYang Lau, Mari Karsikas, Hannu Kinnunen, and Michael WL Chee. 2021. A longitudinal analysis of COVID-19 lockdown stringency on sleep and resting heart rate measures across 20 countries. Scientific Reports 11, 1 (2021), 14413

2021
[104]

Jukka-Pekka Onnela, Caleb Dixon, Keary Griffin, Tucker Jaenicke, Leila Minowada, Sean Esterkin, Alvin Siu, Josh Zagorsky, and Eli Jones. 2021. Beiwe: A data collection platform for high-throughput digital phenotyping. Journal of Open Source Software 6, 68 (2021), 3417

2021
[105]

Oura Health Oy. 2024. Oura Ring. Retrieved 2025-04-12 from https://ouraring.com

2024
[106]

Shantanu Pal, Subhas Mukhopadhyay, and Nagender Suryadevara. 2021. Development and Progress in Sensors and Technologies for Human Emotion Recognition, In Sensor Technology for Improving Human Movements and Postures. Sensors 21, 16. doi:10.3390/ s21165554

2021
[107]

Lawrence A Palinkas, Sarah M Horwitz, Carla A Green, Jennifer P Wisdom, Naihua Duan, and Kimberly Hoagwood. 2015. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental Proc. ACM Interact. M...

2015
[108]

Cheul Young Park, Narae Cha, Soowon Kang, Auk Kim, Ahsan Habib Khandoker, Leontios Hadjileontiadis, Alice Oh, Yong Jeong, and Uichin Lee. 2020. K-EmoCon, a multimodal sensor dataset for continuous emotion recognition in naturalistic conversations. Scientific Data 7, 1 (2020), 293

2020
[109]

Ignacio Perez-Pozuelo, Dimitris Spathis, Emma AD Clifton, and Cecilia Mascolo. 2021. Wearables, smartphones, and artificial intelligence for digital phenotyping and health. In Digital health. Elsevier, 33–54

2021
[110]

Rosalind Picard. 1997. W.,(1997). Affective Computing

1997
[111]

Kathleen Pine, Claus Bossen, Naja Holten Møller, Milagros Miceli, Alex Jiahong Lu, Yunan Chen, Leah Horgan, Zhaoyuan Su, Gina Neff, and Melissa Mazmanian. 2022. Investigating Data Work Across Domains: New Perspectives on the Work of Creating Data. In Extended Abstracts of the ...

2022
[112]

Robert Plutchik. 1982. A psychoevolutionary theory of emotions

1982
[113]

Pollak, Phil Adams, and Geri Gay

John P. Pollak, Phil Adams, and Geri Gay. 2011. PAM: a photographic affect meter for frequent, in situ measurement of affect. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

2011
[114]

Pooja Prajod, Bhargavi Mahesh, and Elisabeth André. 2024. Stressor Type Matters! – Exploring Factors Influencing Cross-Dataset Generalizability of Physiological Stress Detection. arXiv:2405.09563 [eess.SP] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.09563

2024 arXiv
[115]

David Preece, Rodrigo Becerra, Ken Robinson, Justine Dandy, and Alfred Allan. 2018. The psychometric assessment of alexithymia: Development and validation of the Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences 132 (2018), 32–44

2018
[116]

Nina Rajcic and Jon McCormack. 2020. Mirror ritual: An affective interface for emotional self-reflection. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

2020
[117]

Nina Rajcic and Jon McCormack. 2020. Mirror Ritual: An Affective Interface for Emotional Self-Reflection. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13...

2020
[118]

Nikki Rickard, Hussain-Abdulah Arjmand, David Bakker, Elizabeth Seabrook, et al . 2016. Development of a mobile phone app to support self-monitoring of emotional well-being: a mental health digital innovation. JMIR mental health 3, 4 (2016), e6202

2016
[119]

Fabien Ringeval, Andreas Sonderegger, Juergen Sauer, and Denis Lalanne. 2013. Introducing the RECOLA multimodal corpus of remote collaborative and affective interactions. In 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG). 1...

2013
[120]

Tobias Röddiger, Christopher Clarke, Paula Breitling, Tim Schneegans, Haibin Zhao, Hans Gellersen, and Michael Beigl. 2022. Sensing with Earables: A Systematic Literature Review and Taxonomy of Phenomena. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 6, 3, Article 135 ...

2022 doi
[121]

Kat Roemmich and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Data Subjects’ Conceptualizations of and Attitudes Toward Automatic Emotion Recognition- Enabled Wellbeing Interventions on Social Media. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 308 (oct 2021), 34 pages. doi:10.1145/3476049

2021 doi
[122]

Kat Roemmich, Florian Schaub, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2023. Emotion AI at Work: Implications for Workplace Surveillance, Emotional Labor, and Emotional Privacy. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Associat...

2023
[123]

James A Russell, Anna Weiss, and Gerald A Mendelsohn. 1989. Affect grid: a single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of personality and social psychology 57, 3 (1989), 493

1989
[124]

Stanisław Saganowski, Joanna Komoszyńska, Maciej Behnke, Bartosz Perz, Dominika Kunc, Bartłomiej Klich, Łukasz D Kaczmarek, and Przemysław Kazienko. 2022. Emognition dataset: emotion recognition with self-reports, facial expressions, and physiology using wearables. Scientific ...

2022
[125]

Stanisław Saganowski, Joanna Komoszyńska, Maciej Behnke, Bartosz Perz, Dominika Kunc, Bartłomiej Klich, Łukasz D Kaczmarek, and Przemysław Kazienko. 2022. Emognition dataset: emotion recognition with self-reports, facial expressions, and physiology using wearables. Scientific ...

2022
[126]

Polak, and Przemysław Kazienko

Stanisław Saganowski, Bartosz Perz, Adam G. Polak, and Przemysław Kazienko. 2023. Emotion Recognition for Everyday Life Using Physiological Signals From Wearables: A Systematic Literature Review.IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 14, 3 (2023), 1876–1897. doi:10.1109/TAFF...

2023
[127]

Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work

Nithya Sambasivan, Shivani Kapania, Hannah Highfill, Diana Akrong, Praveen Paritosh, and Lora M Aroyo. 2021. “Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Syste...

2021
[128]

Samsung Electronics. 2024. Samsung Galaxy Watch. Retrieved 2025-04-12 from https://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxy-watch/ Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 9, No. 3, Article 131. Publication date: September 2025. 131:40 • Pragya Singh, Ankush Gup...

2024
[129]

Philip Schmidt, Attila Reiss, Robert Duerichen, Claus Marberger, and Kristof Van Laerhoven. 2018. Introducing WESAD, a Multimodal Dataset for Wearable Stress and Affect Detection. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (Boulder, CO, U...

2018
[130]

Stefan Schneider, Doerte U Junghaenel, Tania Gutsche, Hio Wa Mak, and Arthur A Stone. 2020. Comparability of emotion dynamics derived from ecological momentary assessments, daily diaries, and the day reconstruction method: Observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Resea...

2020
[131]

Marc Schröder, Hannes Pirker, and Myriam Lamolle. 2006. First suggestions for an emotion annotation and representation language. In Proceedings of LREC, Vol. 6. 88–92

2006
[132]

Bahar Sert and Selami Varol Ülker. 2023. A Review of LIWC and Machine Learning Approaches On Mental Health Diagnosis. Social Review of Technology and Change 1, 2 (2023), 71–92

2023
[133]

Karan Sharma, Claudio Castellini, Egon L Van Den Broek, Alin Albu-Schaeffer, and Friedhelm Schwenker. 2019. A dataset of continuous affect annotations and physiological signals for emotion analysis. Scientific data 6, 1, 196

2019
[134]

Donghoon Shin, Subeen Park, Esther Hehsun Kim, Soomin Kim, Jinwook Seo, and Hwajung Hong. 2022. Exploring the Effects of AI-assisted Emotional Support Processes in Online Mental Health Community. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

2022
[135]

Xinyu Shui, Mi Zhang, Zhuoran Li, Xin Hu, Fei Wang, and Dan Zhang. 2021. A dataset of daily ambulatory psychological and physiological recording for emotion research. Scientific data 8, 1, 161

2021
[136]

Nicolas Simonazzi, Jean-Marc Salotti, Marie Morelle, Caroline Dubois, and Philippe Le Goff. 2021. The Geneva Emotion Wheel Mobile Interface: an Instrument to Report Emotions on Android Devices. In ERGO’IA 2021-De l’Interaction Homme-Machine à la Relation Homme-Machine, comment...

2021
[137]

Pragya Singh, Ritvik Budhiraja, Ankush Gupta, Anshul Goswami, Mohan Kumar, and Pushpendra Singh. 2024. EEVR: A Dataset of Paired Physiological Signals and Textual Descriptions for Joint Emotion Representation Learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024...

2024
[139]

Pragya Singh, Mohan Kumar, and Pushpendra Singh. 2024. Can we say a cat is a cat? Understanding the challenges in annotating physiological signal-based emotion data. arXiv:2406.14908 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14908

2024 arXiv
[140]

Petr Slovak, Alissa Antle, Nikki Theofanopoulou, Claudia Daudén Roquet, James Gross, and Katherine Isbister. 2023. Designing for emotion regulation interventions: an agenda for HCI theory and research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 1 (2023), 1–51

2023
[141]

Elena Smets, Emmanuel Rios Velazquez, Giuseppina Schiavone, Imen Chakroun, Ellie D’Hondt, Walter De Raedt, Jan Cornelis, Olivier Janssens, Sofie Van Hoecke, Stephan Claes, et al. 2018. Large-scale wearable data reveal digital phenotypes for daily-life stress detection. NPJ dig...

2018
[142]

Elena Smets, Emmanuel Rios Velazquez, Giuseppina Schiavone, Imen Chakroun, Ellie D’Hondt, Walter De Raedt, Jan Cornelis, Olivier Janssens, Sofie Van Hoecke, Stephan Claes, et al. 2018. Large-scale wearable data reveal digital phenotypes for daily-life stress detection. NPJ dig...

2018
[143]

Luke Stark and Jesse Hoey. 2021. The Ethics of Emotion in Artificial Intelligence Systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Virtual Event, Canada) (FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 782–7...

2021
[144]

Arthur A Stone, Joseph E Schwartz, David Schkade, Norbert Schwarz, Alan Krueger, and Daniel Kahneman. 2006. A population approach to the study of emotion: diurnal rhythms of a working day examined with the Day Reconstruction Method. Emotion 6, 1 (2006), 139

2006
[145]

Samuel J Stratton. 2021. Population research: convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and disaster Medicine 36, 4 (2021), 373–374

2021
[146]

Vieriu, Stefan Winkler, and Nicu Sebe

Ramanathan Subramanian, Julia Wache, Mojtaba Khomami Abadi, Radu L. Vieriu, Stefan Winkler, and Nicu Sebe. 2018. ASCERTAIN: Emotion and Personality Recognition Using Commercial Sensors. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 9, 2, 147–160. doi:10.1109/ TAFFC.2016.2625250

2018
[147]

Luma Tabbaa, Ryan Searle, Saber Mirzaee Bafti, Md Moinul Hossain, Jittrapol Intarasisrisawat, Maxine Glancy, and Chee Siang Ang
[148]

Sabrina Thai and Elizabeth Page-Gould. 2018. ExperienceSampler: An open-source scaffold for building smartphone apps for experience sampling. Psychological Methods 23, 4 (2018), 729

2018
[149]

Anja Thieme, Danielle Belgrave, and Gavin Doherty. 2020. Machine learning in mental health: A systematic review of the HCI literature to support the development of effective and implementable ML systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) Proc. ACM Interact...

2020
[150]

Leimin Tian, Sharon Oviatt, Michal Muszynski, Brent Chamberlain, Jennifer Healey, and Akane Sano. 2022. Applied Affective Computing. Morgan & Claypool

2022
[151]

Maria Dolores C Tongco. 2007. Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. (2007)

2007
[152]

Peter Traunmuller, Anice Jahanjoo, Soheil Khooyooz, Amin Aminifar, and Nima TaheriNejad. 2024. Wearable Healthcare Devices for Monitoring Stress and Attention Level in Workplace Environments. arXiv:2406.05813 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05813

2024 arXiv
[153]

Charalampos Tsirmpas, Dimitrios Andrikopoulos, Panagiotis Fatouros, Georgios Eleftheriou, Joaquin A Anguera, Konstantinos Kontoangelos, and Charalabos Papageorgiou. 2022. Feasibility, engagement, and preliminary clinical outcomes of a digital biodata- driven intervention for a...

2022
[154]

Anupriya Tuli, Pushpendra Singh, Mamta Sood, Koushik Sinha Deb, Siddharth Jain, Abhishek Jain, Manan Wason, Rakesh Chadda, and Rohit Verma. 2016. Harmony: close knitted mhealth assistance for patients, caregivers and doctors for managing SMIs. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM In...

2016
[155]

Aditya Vaidyam, John Halamka, John Torous, et al. 2022. Enabling research and clinical use of patient-generated health data (the mindLAMP Platform): digital phenotyping study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 10, 1 (2022), e30557

2022
[156]

Niels van Berkel, Simon D’Alfonso, Rio Kurnia Susanto, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2023. AWARE-Light: A smartphone tool for experience sampling and digital phenotyping. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 27, 2 (2023), 435–445

2023
[157]

Niels van Berkel, Jorge Goncalves, Lauri Lovén, Denzil Ferreira, Simo Hosio, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2019. Effect of experience sampling schedules on response rate and recall accuracy of objective self-reports. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 125, C (may 2019), 118–128. doi:10.1016/...

2019 doi
[158]

Griffiths, and Arvind Narayanan

Veniamin Veselovsky, Berke Argin, Benedikt Stroebl, Chris Wendler, Robert West, James Evans, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Arvind Narayanan. 2025. Localized Cultural Knowledge is Conserved and Controllable in Large Language Models. arXiv:2504.10191 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10191

2025 arXiv
[159]

Alexander Viola, Vladimir Pavlovic, and Sejong Yoon. 2021. Constructivist approaches for computational emotions: A systematic survey. In AAAI Fall Symposium. Springer, 30–50

2021
[160]

Liuping Wang, Xiangmin Fan, Feng Tian, Lingjia Deng, Shuai Ma, Jin Huang, and Hongan Wang. 2018. mirrorU: scaffolding emotional reflection via in-situ assessment and interactive feedback. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6

2018
[161]

Liuping Wang, Xiangmin Fan, Feng Tian, Lingjia Deng, Shuai Ma, Jin Huang, and Hongan Wang. 2018. mirrorU: Scaffolding Emotional Reflection via In-Situ Assessment and Interactive Feedback. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (M...

2018
[162]

Rui Wang, Fanglin Chen, Zhenyu Chen, Tianxing Li, Gabriella Harari, Stefanie Tignor, Xia Zhou, Dror Ben-Zeev, and Andrew T Campbell
[163]

Unrest and trauma stays with you!

Asra Sakeen Wani, Ishika Joshi, Nadia Ishfaq Nahvi, and Pushpendra Singh. 2024. " Unrest and trauma stays with you!": Navigating mental health and professional service-seeking in Kashmir. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

2024
[164]

Taiba Majid Wani, Teddy Surya Gunawan, Syed Asif Ahmad Qadri, Mira Kartiwi, and Eliathamby Ambikairajah. 2021. A Comprehensive Review of Speech Emotion Recognition Systems, In IEEE Access. IEEE Access 9, 47795–47814. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3068045

2021
[165]

David Watson and Lee Anna Clark. 1994. The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa (1994)

1994
[166]

David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology 54, 6, 1063

1988
[167]

Amy Wenzel. 2017. Basic strategies of cognitive behavioral therapy. Psychiatric Clinics 40, 4 (2017), 597–609

2017
[168]

Whoop, Inc. 2024. WHOOP Wearable. Retrieved 2025-04-12 from https://www.whoop.com

2024
[169]

Wijasena, Ridi Ferdiana, and Sunu Wibirama

Hamidan Z. Wijasena, Ridi Ferdiana, and Sunu Wibirama. 2021. A Survey of Emotion Recognition using Physiological Signal in Wearable Devices. In 2021 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Mechatronics Systems (AIMS) . 1–6. doi:10.1109/AIMS52415.2021. 9466092

2021
[170]

Ruolan Wu, Chun Yu, Xiaole Pan, Yujia Liu, Ningning Zhang, Yue Fu, Yuhan Wang, Zhi Zheng, Li Chen, Qiaolei Jiang, Xuhai Xu, and Yuanchun Shi. 2024. MindShift: Leveraging Large Language Models for Mental-States-Based Problematic Smartphone Use Intervention. In Proceedings of th...

2024
[171]

Kuehn, Jeremy F

Xuhai Xu, Xin Liu, Han Zhang, Weichen Wang, Subigya Nepal, Yasaman Sefidgar, Woosuk Seo, Kevin S. Kuehn, Jeremy F. Huckins, Margaret E. Morris, Paula S. Nurius, Eve A. Riskin, Shwetak Patel, Tim Althoff, Andrew Campbell, Anind K. Dey, and Jennifer Mankoff. Proc. ACM Interact. ...

2025
[172]

Yeonsun Yang, Ahyeon Shin, Nayoung Kim, Huidam Woo, John Joon Young Chung, and Jean Y Song. 2024. Find the Bot!: Gamifying Facial Emotion Recognition for Both Human Training and Machine Learning Data Collection. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computin...

2024
[173]

Yau, Benjamin Girault, Tiantian Feng, Karel Mundnich, Amrutha Nadarajan, Brandon M

Joanna C. Yau, Benjamin Girault, Tiantian Feng, Karel Mundnich, Amrutha Nadarajan, Brandon M. Booth, Emilio Ferrara, Kristina Lerman, Eric Hsieh, and Shrikanth Narayanan. 2022. TILES-2019, A longitudinal physiologic and behavioral data set of medical residents in an intensive ...

2022 doi
[174]

Yonghai Yu and Yun Bi. 2010. A study on “5W1H” user analysis on interaction design of interface. In 2010 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design 1 , Vol. 1. IEEE, 329–332

2010
[175]

Emotion annotation refers to the practice of labeling or recording emotional states, often to support self-reflection, research, or the training of AI systems

Renwen Zhang, Kathryn E. Ringland, Melina Paan, David C. Mohr, and Madhu Reddy. 2021. Designing for Emotional Well-being: Integrating Persuasion and Customization into Mental Health Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (...

2021
[2014]

In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing

StudentLife: assessing mental health, academic performance and behavioral trends of college students using smartphones. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing . 3–14

2014
[2021]

Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies 5, 4 (2021), 1–20

Vreed: Virtual reality emotion recognition dataset using eye tracking & physiological measures. Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies 5, 4 (2021), 1–20

2021
[2022]

Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 6, 4 (Dec

GLOBEM: Cross-Dataset Generalization of Longitudinal Human Behavior Modeling. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 6, 4 (Dec. 2022), 1–34. doi:10.1145/3569485

2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [138]

Pragya Singh, Ritvik Budhiraja, Pankaj Jalote, Mohan Kumar, and Pushpendra Singh. 2025. Translating Emotions to Annotations: A Participant’s Perspective of Physiological Emotion Data Collection. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 9, 2, Article CSCW195 (May 2025), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3711093

work page doi:10.1145/3711093 2025

[2] [1]

Calm - Meditation and Sleep App

2024. Calm - Meditation and Sleep App. https://www.calm.com

2024

[3] [2]

Daylio - Mood Tracker and Diary

2024. Daylio - Mood Tracker and Diary. https://daylio.net

2024

[4] [3]

Headspace - Mindfulness and Meditation App

2024. Headspace - Mindfulness and Meditation App. https://www.headspace.com

2024

[5] [4]

Woebot - Your Self-Care Expert

2024. Woebot - Your Self-Care Expert. https://woebothealth.com

2024

[6] [5]

Wysa - Mental Health Support

2024. Wysa - Mental Health Support. https://www.wysa.io

2024

[7] [6]

Alaa Abd-Alrazaq, Rawan AlSaad, Manale Harfouche, Sarah Aziz, Arfan Ahmed, Rafat Damseh, and Javaid Sheikh. 2023. Wearable artificial intelligence for detecting anxiety: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of medical Internet research 25 (2023), e48754

2023

[8] [7]

Alaa Abd-Alrazaq, Rawan AlSaad, Farag Shuweihdi, Arfan Ahmed, Sarah Aziz, and Javaid Sheikh. 2023. Systematic review and meta-analysis of performance of wearable artificial intelligence in detecting and predicting depression. NPJ Digital Medicine 6, 1 (2023), 84

2023