Next Article in Journal
Assessment of the Multi-Location External Workload Profile in the Most Common Movements in Basketball
Previous Article in Journal
Improved In-Flight Estimation of Inertial Biases through CDGNSS/Vision Based Cooperative Navigation
Previous Article in Special Issue
An EEG-Based Transfer Learning Method for Cross-Subject Fatigue Mental State Prediction
Systematic Review

A Systematic Review for Cognitive State-Based QoE/UX Evaluation

Department of Computer Science, TecNM/CENIDET, Morelos 62490, Mexico
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Gianluca Borghini, Klaus Gramann, Tzyy-Ping Jung, Michelle Liou and Hong-Hsiang Liu
Sensors 2021, 21(10), 3439;
Received: 15 April 2021 / Revised: 3 May 2021 / Accepted: 6 May 2021 / Published: 14 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Embodied Minds: From Cognition to Artificial Intelligence)
Traditional evaluation of user experience is subjective by nature, for what is sought is to use data from physiological and behavioral sensors to interpret the relationship that the user’s cognitive states have with the elements of a graphical interface and interaction mechanisms. This study presents the systematic review that was developed to determine the cognitive states that are being investigated in the context of Quality of Experience (QoE)/User Experience (UX) evaluation, as well as the signals and characteristics obtained, machine learning models used, evaluation architectures proposed, and the results achieved. Twenty-nine papers published in 2014–2019 were selected from eight online sources of information, of which 24% were related to the classification of cognitive states, 17% described evaluation architectures, and 41% presented correlations between different signals, cognitive states, and QoE/UX metrics, among others. The amount of identified studies was low in comparison with cognitive state research in other contexts, such as driving or other critical activities; however, this provides a starting point to analyze and interpret states such as mental workload, confusion, and mental stress from various human signals and propose more robust QoE/UX evaluation architectures. View Full-Text
Keywords: QoE; UX; cognitive states; physiological data; behavioral data; biometric sensors QoE; UX; cognitive states; physiological data; behavioral data; biometric sensors
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Bañuelos-Lozoya, E.; González-Serna, G.; González-Franco, N.; Fragoso-Diaz, O.; Castro-Sánchez, N. A Systematic Review for Cognitive State-Based QoE/UX Evaluation. Sensors 2021, 21, 3439.

AMA Style

Bañuelos-Lozoya E, González-Serna G, González-Franco N, Fragoso-Diaz O, Castro-Sánchez N. A Systematic Review for Cognitive State-Based QoE/UX Evaluation. Sensors. 2021; 21(10):3439.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bañuelos-Lozoya, Edgar, Gabriel González-Serna, Nimrod González-Franco, Olivia Fragoso-Diaz, and Noé Castro-Sánchez. 2021. "A Systematic Review for Cognitive State-Based QoE/UX Evaluation" Sensors 21, no. 10: 3439.

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop