ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Predicting emotional responses in interactive art using Random Forests: a model grounded in enactive aesthetics.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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.
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
Introduction: Interactive installation art offers immersive and participatory environments that elicit complex and multidimensional emotional experiences-encompassing sensorimotor engagement, affective resonance, and cognitive reflection. However, these emotional responses' inherently dynamic, subjective, and often pre-reflective nature poses significant challenges to their systematic prediction and computational modeling. Methods: To address these challenges, the present study introduces an interpretable machine learning framework grounded in the Random Forest (RF) algorithm, which provides a balanced trade-off between predictive performance and model transparency, thereby aligning with the needs of theory-driven emotion research. Based on 390 valid questionnaire responses, emotional responses were operationalized along five distinct dimensions: bodily changes, sensory engagement, emotional connection, cognitive reflection, and active personalization. Predictor variables encompassed sensory stimuli, multimodal interactional features, and immersive environmental cues. Model evaluation was conducted using cross-validation and held-out test sets, applying classification and regression metrics to assess performance. Results: The RF model demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy in the domains of cognitive reflection (F1 = 0.746, accuracy = 0.769) and active personalization (F1 = 0.673, accuracy = 0.705), suggesting that these cognitively mediated responses exhibit greater consistency and learnability across participants. In contrast, bodily responses proved substantially less predictable (F1 = 0.379, accuracy = 0.397), likely due to their idiosyncratic, embodied, and non-verbal nature, which may not be adequately captured by self-report measures alone. Discussion: These differential results underscore the relative tractability of modeling reflective and agentic emotional states in contrast to those rooted in sensorimotor or affective processes. Moreover, the model's consistent performance across all evaluation phases affirms its suitability as an exploratory tool for investigating emotion in interactive art contexts. This study contributes to the evolving convergence of affective computing, human-computer interaction (HCI), and empirical aesthetics. The proposed framework yields actionable insights for the design of emotionally adaptive systems. Future research should consider the integration of multimodal and temporally granular data, and the ethical dimensions associated with affective adaptivity in artistic and public-facing environments.
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.