pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00288 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

FaceValue: Exploring Real-Time Self-View Overlays to Prompt Meaning-Oriented Self-Awareness in Remote Meetings

Gun Woo Warren Park , Anthony Tang , Fanny Chevalier
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 19:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords remote meetingsvideo conferencingnon-verbal cuesself-awarenesstechnology probehuman-computer interactionmeaning-oriented awareness
0
0 comments X

The pith

Private real-time overlays on self-view can increase awareness of misaligned non-verbal cues and prompt in-meeting adjustments during remote video calls.

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

Remote video meetings make facial expressions and head movements visible but only partially, which raises the chance that intended meaning gets lost or misread compared to face-to-face talk. The paper presents a probe called FaceValue that adds private, subtle prompts directly onto each person's own video feed to encourage reflection on how those visible cues might land with others. Instead of labeling behavior, the prompts support a form of self-awareness focused on meaning, inviting users to consider possible gaps between what they intend and what others see. In a multi-week deployment with thirteen knowledge workers, participants described noticing misalignments more often and making small adjustments they believed improved how clearly they came across. If the approach holds, it reframes visual cues as something attendees can actively shape rather than fixed signals that simply happen.

Core claim

FaceValue augments the self-view with private, real-time overlays that serve as subtle suggestive prompts to foster meaning-oriented self-awareness, helping attendees recognize when visible cues may unintentionally miscommunicate intent. Deployed in the wild, the probe led participants to report heightened awareness of potentially misaligned cues, in-meeting adjustments, and a belief that communication with others improved as a result. The work also advances a conceptual framing that treats visual non-verbal cues as a manipulable communication resource and supplies design insights for future meeting systems.

What carries the argument

The private real-time self-view overlays that deliver subtle suggestive prompts without behavioral labeling, intended to support reflection on how cues might be interpreted by others.

If this is right

  • Visual non-verbal cues become a resource users can deliberately manage within remote meetings.
  • Meeting platforms can add private feedback layers to reduce ambiguity without public labeling.
  • Design choices that avoid explicit behavior labels help preserve personal interpretation of cues.
  • Empirically grounded insights from the probe can guide development of systems that promote self-awareness.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same overlay approach could be tested in longer-term remote work tools to see whether users develop lasting habits around cue presentation.
  • Extending the concept to mixed-reality or hybrid meetings might reveal whether physical presence changes how people respond to private prompts.
  • Cultural differences in non-verbal signaling could be explored by deploying similar probes across varied participant groups to check for consistent effects.

Load-bearing premise

That self-reported shifts in awareness and behavior stem directly from the overlays rather than from simply taking part in the study or other unmeasured influences.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which one set of participants uses the overlays while a matched set does not, tracking objective measures such as rates of reported misunderstandings or observable adjustments in subsequent meetings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00288 by Anthony Tang, Fanny Chevalier, Gun Woo Warren Park.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FaceValue augments the user’s self-view based on its interpretation of their communicative expressions. For example, when the user appears to be expressing agreement—expressed with a smile—their face is outlined in green. Conversely, when they appear to express disagreement—expressed with a frown—their face is outlined in yellow. Some specific expressions or head movements are accompanied by an icon. For i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Conceptual illustration of the augmented self-view in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The “Visualization Mapping” phase produces three main forms of visual cues: color-based overlays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Breakdown of meeting contexts reported in the diaries (65 entries - See also: Supplementary Material). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Participants’ self-view preferences collected in the post-study questionnaire. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In remote video meetings, visual non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions or head movements, are seen continuously but often only partially. This increases ambiguity compared to in-person settings and can cause misinterpretation or misalignment between intended and perceived meaning. Motivated by communication theories, we designed FaceValue, a technology probe that augments the self-view with private, real-time overlays. These overlays are subtle, suggestive prompts intended to help attendees reflect on how their cues might be interpreted by others. To invite personal interpretation, FaceValue avoids behavioral labeling and instead aims to support meaning-oriented self-awareness: recognizing when visible cues may unintentionally (mis)communicate intent. We deployed FaceValue in the wild with thirteen knowledge workers over multiple weeks, capturing perceived changes in self-awareness and behavior, and impressions on the design concepts, as self-reported by participants through diary entries and exit interviews. Participants felt FaceValue increased their awareness of potentially misaligned cues and motivated in-meeting adjustments, which they believe resulted in improved communication with other attendees. We contribute a conceptual framing that positions visual non-verbal cues as a manipulable communication resource, a technology probe that aims to foster meaning-oriented self-awareness, and empirically-grounded design insights for future meeting systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents FaceValue, a technology probe that augments remote meeting self-views with private, real-time subtle overlays designed to prompt reflection on how non-verbal cues (e.g., facial expressions) might be interpreted by others, without using behavioral labels. Motivated by communication theories, the authors deployed the probe with 13 knowledge workers over multiple weeks, collecting data via diary entries and exit interviews. Participants reported increased awareness of potentially misaligned cues, motivation to make in-meeting adjustments, and a belief that this improved communication. Contributions include a conceptual framing of visual cues as manipulable resources, the probe design, and empirically grounded design insights.

Significance. If the self-reported effects hold in broader contexts, this exploratory work offers timely insights for HCI and CSCW on designing reflective rather than prescriptive tools for video-mediated interaction. The probe approach and focus on meaning-oriented self-awareness provide a useful counterpoint to automated feedback systems, with potential to inform future meeting platforms. The qualitative deployment yields concrete design implications grounded in user interpretations.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrasing 'which they believe resulted in improved communication' is appropriately hedged but could be expanded to explicitly note that no objective communication metrics or third-party observations were collected.
  2. [Study] Deployment and data collection: Additional details on the total number of meetings observed per participant, exact deployment duration, and how diary prompts were structured would strengthen replicability of the probe study.
  3. [Findings] Findings: While themes are described, including a small number of representative verbatim quotes from diaries or interviews for each key theme (awareness, adjustments, perceived communication) would improve transparency and allow readers to assess interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our work on FaceValue and for recommending minor revision. The referee's summary accurately reflects the paper's motivation, probe design, deployment, and contributions to HCI/CSCW on reflective tools for video-mediated interaction. We appreciate the recognition of the probe's counterpoint to automated feedback systems and the value of the empirically grounded design insights.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper presents a qualitative technology-probe study in HCI with no mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictive models. Its central claims derive directly from self-reported diary entries and exit interviews collected during a 13-participant deployment; these empirical observations do not reduce by construction to any prior definitions, self-citations, or ansatzes within the paper. Standard qualitative practices (thematic analysis of participant feedback) are used without invoking uniqueness theorems or renaming known results as novel derivations. Any citations to communication theories serve only as motivational framing and are not load-bearing for the reported findings.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No mathematical model or derivation; the work rests on standard HCI assumptions about self-reported data validity and communication theory interpretations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5524 in / 1119 out tokens · 24756 ms · 2026-05-09T19:24:19.413478+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2006.Understanding human communication

    Ronald Brian Adler, George R Rodman, and Alexandre Sévigny. 2006.Understanding human communication. Vol. 10. Oxford University Press Oxford

    2006

  2. [2]

    Bon Adriel Aseniero, Marios Constantinides, Sagar Joglekar, Ke Zhou, and Daniele Quercia. 2020. MeetCues: Supporting online meetings experience. In2020 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS). IEEE, 236–240

    2020

  3. [3]

    Avi Asher-Schapiro. 2022. Zoom urged by rights groups to rule out ’creepy’ AI emotion tech. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-tech-rights/zoom-urged-by-rights-groups-to-rule-out-creepy-ai-emotion- tech-idINL5N2X21UW/

    2022

  4. [4]

    Hillel Aviezer, Noga Ensenberg, and Ran R Hassin. 2017. The inherently contextualized nature of facial emotion perception.Current opinion in psychology17 (2017), 47–54

    2017

  5. [5]

    Jeremy N Bailenson. 2021. Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Karolina Balogova and Duncan Brumby. 2022. How Do You Zoom?: A Survey Study of How Users Configure Video-Conference Tools for Online Meetings. In2022 Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work. 1–7

    2022

  7. [7]

    Dean C Barnlund. 1970. A Transactional Model of Communication in Sereno and Mortensen eds. Foundations of Comnunication Theory.Harper and Row18 (1970), 50

    1970

  8. [8]

    Ivo Benke, Maren Schneider, Xuanhui Liu, and Alexander Maedche. 2022. TeamSpiritous-A Retrospective Emotional Competence Development System for Video-Meetings.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–28

    2022

  9. [9]

    Charles R Berger and Richard J Calabrese. 1974. Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication.Human communication research1, 2 (1974), 99–112

    1974

  10. [10]

    Kirsten Boehner, Rogério DePaula, Paul Dourish, and Phoebe Sengers. 2005. Affect: from information to interaction. InProceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility. 59–68

    2005

  11. [11]

    John L Bradshaw and Graeme Wallacei. 1971. Models for the processing and identification of faces.Perception & Psychophysics9 (1971), 443–448

    1971

  12. [12]

    2022.Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2022.Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications Ltd, London

    2022

  13. [13]

    Barry Brown, Stuart Reeves, and Scott Sherwood. 2011. Into the wild: challenges and opportunities for field trial methods. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1657–1666. 22 FaceValueCSCW ’26, October 13–17, 2026, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    2011

  14. [14]

    Andrew J Calder and Jesse Jansen. 2005. Configural coding of facial expressions: The impact of inversion and photographic negative.Visual cognition12, 3 (2005), 495–518

    2005

  15. [15]

    Andrew J Calder, Andrew W Young, Jill Keane, and Michael Dean. 2000. Configural information in facial expression perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance26, 2 (2000), 527

    2000

  16. [16]

    Mei-Yen Chen and Chien-Chung Chen. 2010. The contribution of the upper and lower face in happy and sad facial expression classification.Vision Research50, 18 (2010), 1814–1823

    2010

  17. [17]

    I was afraid, but now I enjoy being a streamer!

    Xinyue Chen, Si Chen, Xu Wang, and Yun Huang. 2021. "I was afraid, but now I enjoy being a streamer!" Understanding the Challenges and Prospects of Using Live Streaming for Online Education.Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction4, CSCW3 (2021), 1–32

    2021

  18. [18]

    Kevin Chow, Roy Rutishauser, André Meyer, Joanna McGrenere, and Thomas Fritz. 2025. Exploring a Real-time Feedback Display of Non-verbal Cues in Online Work Meetings to Support Self-Presentation

    2025

  19. [19]

    Natasha Crampton. 2022. Microsoft’s framework for building AI systems responsibly - Microsoft On the Issues — blogs.microsoft.com. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2022/06/21/microsofts-framework-for-building-ai- systems-responsibly/. [Accessed 28-11-2024]

    2022

  20. [20]

    Richard L Daft and Robert H Lengel. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design.Management science32, 5 (1986), 554–571

    1986

  21. [21]

    Stungage

    Snigdha Das, Sandip Chakraborty, and Bivas Mitra. 2022. I Cannot See Students Focusing on My Presentation; Are They Following Me? Continuous Monitoring of Student Engagement through “Stungage”. InProceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. 243–253

    2022

  22. [22]

    Jose Eurico de Vasconcelos Filho, Kori M Inkpen, and Mary Czerwinski. 2009. Image, appearance and vanity in the use of media spaces and video conference systems. InProceedings of the 2009 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work. 253–262

    2009

  23. [23]

    Shelley Duval. 1972. A theory of objective self-awareness

    1972

  24. [24]

    Paul Ekman. 1992. Facial expressions of emotion: New findings, new questions

    1992

  25. [25]

    Dirk M Elston. 2021. The novelty effect.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology85, 3 (2021), 565–566

    2021

  26. [26]

    Mohamed Ez-Zaouia, Aurélien Tabard, and Elise Lavoué. 2020. EMODASH: A dashboard supporting retrospective awareness of emotions in online learning.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies139 (2020), 102411

    2020

  27. [27]

    Korn Ferry. 2023. Cameras On or Off? Professionals Weigh in On Video Usage During Virtual Meetings in Korn Ferry Survey — kornferry.com. [Accessed 30-04-2025]

    2023

  28. [28]

    Charles Forceville, Elisabeth El Refaie, and Gert Meesters. 2017. Stylistics and comics. InThe Routledge handbook of stylistics. Routledge, 485–499

    2017

  29. [29]

    Inakshi Garg, Pradeep Thakur, Tarana Verma, and Amarnath Yadav. 2024. Affective Computing in Mental Health: The Role of Facial Expression Recognition.IJFMR) International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research(2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    William W Gaver, Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford. 2003. Ambiguity as a resource for design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 233–240

    2003

  31. [31]

    Thomas Gilovich, Kenneth Savitsky, and Victoria Husted Medvec. 1998. The illusion of transparency: biased assessments of others’ ability to read one’s emotional states.Journal of personality and social psychology75, 2 (1998), 332

    1998

  32. [32]

    Carlota Vazquez Gonzalez, Timothy Neate, and Rita Borgo. 2025. Trusting Tracking: Perceptions of Non-Verbal Communication Tracking in Videoconferencing. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Dale L Goodhue and Ronald L Thompson. 1995. Task-technology fit and individual performance.MIS quarterly (1995), 213–236

    1995

  34. [34]

    Jonathan Grudin. 1994. Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers.Commun. ACM37, 1 (1994), 92–105

    1994

  35. [35]

    Jenny Gu, Clara Strauss, Rod Bond, and Kate Cavanagh. 2015. How do mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation studies.Clinical psychology review37 (2015), 1–12

    2015

  36. [36]

    Brian D Hall, Lyn Bartram, and Matthew Brehmer. 2022. Augmented chironomia for presenting data to remote audiences. InProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–14

    2022

  37. [37]

    Ari Hautasaari, Minami Aramaki, Rintaro Chujo, and Takeshi Naemura. 2024. EmoScribe Camera: A Virtual Camera System to Enliven Online Conferencing with Automatically Generated Emotional Text Captions. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7

    2024

  38. [38]

    Zhenyi He, Keru Wang, Brandon Yushan Feng, Ruofei Du, and Ken Perlin. 2021. Gazechat: Enhancing virtual conferences with gaze-aware 3d photos. InThe 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 769–782

    2021

  39. [39]

    1958.The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations(1st ed.)

    Fritz Heider. 1958.The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations(1st ed.). Psychology Press. 23 CSCW ’26, October 13–17, 2026, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Park, Tang, and Chevalier

    1958

  40. [40]

    Marie Helweg-Larsen, Stephanie J Cunningham, Amanda Carrico, and Alison M Pergram. 2004. To nod or not to nod: An observational study of nonverbal communication and status in female and male college students.Psychology of Women Quarterly28, 4 (2004), 358–361

    2004

  41. [41]

    Dustin Hillard, Mari Ostendorf, and Elizabeth Shriberg. 2003. Detection of agreement vs. disagreement in meetings: Training with unlabeled data. InCompanion Volume of the Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2003-Short Papers. 34–36

    2003

  42. [42]

    Steven Houben, Connie Golsteijn, Sarah Gallacher, Rose Johnson, Saskia Bakker, Nicolai Marquardt, Licia Capra, and Yvonne Rogers. 2016. Physikit: Data engagement through physical ambient visualizations in the home. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1608–1619

    2016

  43. [43]

    Noura Howell, Laura Devendorf, Rundong Tian, Tomás Vega Galvez, Nan-Wei Gong, Ivan Poupyrev, Eric Paulos, and Kimiko Ryokai. 2016. Biosignals as social cues: Ambiguity and emotional interpretation in social displays of skin conductance. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 865–870

    2016

  44. [44]

    Erzhen Hu, Jens Emil Sloth Grønbæk, Austin Houck, and Seongkook Heo. 2023. OpenMic: Utilizing Proxemic Metaphors for Conversational Floor Transitions in Multiparty Video Meetings. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2023

  45. [45]

    Erzhen Hu, Jens Emil Sloth Grønbæk, Wen Ying, Ruofei Du, and Seongkook Heo. 2023. ThingShare: Ad-Hoc digital copies of physical objects for sharing things in video meetings. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22

    2023

  46. [46]

    Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, et al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 17–24

    2003

  47. [47]

    Isaacs and John C

    Ellen A. Isaacs and John C. Tang. 1993. What video can and can’t do for collaboration: a case study. InProceedings of the First ACM International Conference on Multimedia(Anaheim, California, USA)(MULTIMEDIA ’93). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1145/166266.166289

    work page doi:10.1145/166266.166289 1993

  48. [48]

    Zifan Jiang, Mark Luskus, Salman Seyedi, Emily L Griner, Ali Bahrami Rad, Gari D Clifford, Mina Boazak, and Robert O Cotes. 2022. Utilizing computer vision for facial behavior analysis in schizophrenia studies: A systematic review.PloS one17, 4 (2022), e0266828

    2022

  49. [49]

    Miller, Martin Johannes Dechant, and Regan L

    Matthew K. Miller, Martin Johannes Dechant, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2021. Meeting You, Seeing Me: The Role of Social Anxiety, Visual Feedback, and Interface Layout in a Get-to-Know-You Task via Video Chat.. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2021

  50. [50]

    Sepideh Kalateh, Sanaz Nikghadam Hojjati, and Jose Barata. 2024. Towards a framework for multimodal creativity states detection from emotion, arousal, and valence. InInternational Conference on Computational Science. Springer, 79–86

    2024

  51. [51]

    Takeo Kanade, Jeffrey F Cohn, and Yingli Tian. 2000. Comprehensive database for facial expression analysis. In Proceedings fourth IEEE international conference on automatic face and gesture recognition (cat. No. PR00580). IEEE, 46–53

    2000

  52. [52]

    Harold H Kelley. 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology.. InNebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press

    1967

  53. [53]

    Fahad Khan, Seemal Asif, and Phil Webb. 2024. Human Facial Emotion Recognition for Adaptive Human Robot Collaboration in Manufacturing. InAnnual Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems. Springer, 33–47

    2024

  54. [54]

    2021.Longitudinal studies in HCI research: a review of CHI publications from 1982–2019

    Maria Kjærup, Mikael B Skov, Peter Axel Nielsen, Jesper Kjeldskov, Jens Gerken, and Harald Reiterer. 2021.Longitudinal studies in HCI research: a review of CHI publications from 1982–2019. Springer

    2021

  55. [55]

    Yaroslav Konar, Patrick J Bennett, and Allison B Sekuler. 2010. Holistic processing is not correlated with face- identification accuracy.Psychological science21, 1 (2010), 38–43

    2010

  56. [56]

    Kristine M Kuhn. 2022. The constant mirror: Self-view and attitudes to virtual meetings.Computers in Human Behavior128 (2022), 107110

    2022

  57. [57]

    Ha Yeon Lee, Seora Park, Esther Hehsun Kim, Jiyeon Seo, Hajin Lim, and Joonhwan Lee. 2024. Investigating the Effects of Real-time Student Monitoring Interface on Instructors’ Monitoring Practices in Online Teaching. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11

    2024

  58. [58]

    Joanne Leong, Pat Pataranutaporn, Yaoli Mao, Florian Perteneder, Ehsan Hoque, Janet M Baker, and Pattie Maes

  59. [59]

    Inextended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Exploring the use of real-time camera filters on embodiment and creativity. Inextended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7

    2021

  60. [60]

    Gilly Leshed, Dan Cosley, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Geri Gay. 2010. Visualizing language use in team conversations: designing through theory, experiments, and iterations. InCHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 4567–4582

    2010

  61. [61]

    Benjamin J Li and Hui Min Lee. 2023. Filters uncovered: Investigating the impact of AR face filters and self-view on videoconference fatigue and affect.Telematics and Informatics Reports11 (2023), 100088. 24 FaceValueCSCW ’26, October 13–17, 2026, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    2023

  62. [62]

    Shan Li and Weihong Deng. 2020. Deep facial expression recognition: A survey.IEEE transactions on affective computing13, 3 (2020), 1195–1215

    2020

  63. [63]

    Jian Liao, Adnan Karim, Shivesh Singh Jadon, Rubaiat Habib Kazi, and Ryo Suzuki. 2022. RealityTalk: Real-time speech-driven augmented presentation for AR live storytelling. InProceedings of the 35th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. 1–12

    2022

  64. [64]

    Xingyu’Bruce’ Liu, Vladimir Kirilyuk, Xiuxiu Yuan, Peggy Chi, Alex Olwal, Xiang’Anthony’ Chen, and Ruofei Du

  65. [65]

    InAdjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    Experiencing Visual Captions: Augmented Communication with Real-time Visuals using Large Language Models. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–4

  66. [66]

    Zhentao Liu, Min Wu, Weihua Cao, Luefeng Chen, Jianping Xu, Ri Zhang, Mengtian Zhou, and Junwei Mao. 2017. A facial expression emotion recognition based human-robot interaction system.IEEE CAA J. Autom. Sinica4, 4 (2017), 668–676

    2017

  67. [67]

    Steven R Livingstone and Frank A Russo. 2018. The Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS): A dynamic, multimodal set of facial and vocal expressions in North American English.PloS one13, 5 (2018), e0196391

    2018

  68. [68]

    Camillo Lugaresi, Jiuqiang Tang, Hadon Nash, Chris McClanahan, Esha Uboweja, Michael Hays, Fan Zhang, Chuo- Ling Chang, Ming Guang Yong, Juhyun Lee, et al. 2019. Mediapipe: A framework for building perception pipelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08172(2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Kiyosu Maeda, Riku Arakawa, and Jun Rekimoto. 2022. Calmresponses: Displaying collective audience reactions in remote communication. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences. 193–208

    2022

  70. [70]

    Sandi Mann. 1997. Emotional labour in organizations.Leadership & Organization Development Journal18, 1 (1997), 4–12

    1997

  71. [71]

    Fortin, Max Henry, and Jeremy Cooperstock

    David Marino, Jiamin Dai, Pascal E. Fortin, Max Henry, and Jeremy Cooperstock. 2024. Co-Here: an expressive videoconferencing module for implicit affective interaction. InGraphics Interface 2024

    2024

  72. [72]

    Albert Mehrabian and Susan R Ferris. 1967. Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of consulting psychology31, 3 (1967), 248

    1967

  73. [73]

    Albert Mehrabian and Morton Wiener. 1967. Decoding of inconsistent communications.Journal of personality and social psychology6, 1 (1967), 109

    1967

  74. [74]

    Andre N Meyer, Gail C Murphy, Thomas Zimmermann, and Thomas Fritz. 2017. Design recommendations for self-monitoring in the workplace: Studies in software development.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction1, CSCW (2017), 1–24

    2017

  75. [75]

    Matthew K Miller, Regan L Mandryk, Max V Birk, Ansgar E Depping, and Tushita Patel. 2017. Through the looking glass: The effects of feedback on self-awareness and conversational behaviour during video chat. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 5271–5283

    2017

  76. [76]

    Ali Mollahosseini, Behzad Hasani, and Mohammad H Mahoor. 2017. Affectnet: A database for facial expression, valence, and arousal computing in the wild.IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing10, 1 (2017), 18–31

    2017

  77. [77]

    Michael T Motley and Carl T Camden. 1988. Facial expression of emotion: A comparison of posed expressions versus spontaneous expressions in an interpersonal communication setting.Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports)52, 1 (1988), 1–22

    1988

  78. [78]

    Prasanth Murali, Javier Hernandez, Daniel McDuff, Kael Rowan, Jina Suh, and Mary Czerwinski. 2021. Affectivespot- light: Facilitating the communication of affective responses from audience members during online presentations. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2021

  79. [79]

    Gun Woo (Warren) Park, Anthony Tang, and Fanny Chevalier. 2024. JollyGesture: Exploring Dual-Purpose Gestures and Gesture Guidance in VR Presentations. InProceedings of the 50th Graphics Interface Conference. 1–14

    2024

  80. [80]

    Seho Park, Kunyoung Lee, Jae-A Lim, Hyunwoong Ko, Taehoon Kim, Jung-In Lee, Hakrim Kim, Seong-Jae Han, Jeong-Shim Kim, Soowon Park, et al. 2020. Differences in facial expressions between spontaneous and posed smiles: Automated method by action units and three-dimensional facial landmarks.Sensors20, 4 (2020), 1199

    2020

Showing first 80 references.