ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
Eliciting and modeling emotional requirements: a systematic mapping review.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving career guidance accuracy through EEG-based vocational interest assessment and self-reported RIASEC profiles.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Considering users' emotions plays an extremely crucial role in the adoption and acceptance of recent technology by the end user. User emotions can also help to identify unknown requirements, saving resources that would otherwise be wasted if discovered later. However, eliciting and modeling users' emotional requirements in software engineering is still an open research area. Objective: This systematic mapping review analyzes emotional requirements (ER) practices in software engineering from two perspectives: elicitation and modeling. For elicitation techniques, we investigate the techniques, evaluation methods, limitations, and application domains. For modeling techniques, we examine the modeling languages, analyses, limitations, and domains. Method: We systematically reviewed studies on emotional requirements engineering published between 1993-2023 and identified 46 relevant primary studies. Results: A total of 34 studies investigated ER elicitation techniques, five examined modeling techniques, and seven covered both. Illustrative case studies were the main evaluation method for proposed elicitation techniques. Identified limitations include time consumption and extensive human involvement. The dominant application domains were healthcare and well-being, and game development. Conclusion: This review summarizes the current landscape of emotional requirements research, highlighting key elicitation and modeling techniques, evaluations, limitations, and domains. Further research can build on these findings to advance emotional requirements practices in software engineering. Future research may address (1) managing conflicting emotional requirements across users, (2) evaluating the value and impact of considering emotional requirements during the development and (3) Modeling and analyzing emotional requirements in relation to other requirements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.