Measuring code understandability is both highly relevant and exceptionally challenging. This paper proposes a dynamic code understandability assessment method, which estimates a personalized code understandability score from the perspective of the specific programmer handling the code. The method consists of dynamically dividing the code unit under development or review in code regions (invisible to the programmer) and using the number of revisits (NRevisit) to each region as the primary feature for estimating the code understandability score. This approach removes the uncertainty related to the concept of a "typical programmer" assumed by static software code complexity metrics and can be easily implemented using a simple, low-cost, and non-intrusive desktop eye tracker or even a standard computer camera. This metric was evaluated using cognitive load measured through electroencephalography (EEG) in a controlled experiment with 35 programmers. Results show a very high correlation ranging from rs = 0.9067 to rs = 0.9860 (with p nearly 0) between the scores obtained with different alternatives of NRevisit and the ground truth represented by the EEG measurements of programmers’ cognitive load, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach in reflecting the cognitive effort required for code comprehension. The paper also discusses possible practical applications of NRevisit, including its use in the context of AI-generated code, which is already widely used today.

Code review is an essential practice in software engineering to spot code defects in the early stages of software development. Modern code reviews (e.g., acceptance or rejection of pull requests with Git) have become less formal than classic Fagan's inspections, lightweight, and more reliant on individuals (i.e., reviewers). However, reviewers may encounter mentally demanding challenges during the code review, such as code comprehension difficulties or distractions that might affect the code review quality. This work proposes a novel approach that evaluates the quality of code reviews in terms of bug-finding effectiveness and provides the reviewers with a clear message of whether the review should be repeated, indicating the code regions that may not have been well-reviewed. The proposed approach utilizes biometric information collected from the reviewer during the review process using non-intrusive biofeedback devices (e.g., smartwatches). Biometric measures such as Heart Rate Variability (HRV) and task-evoked pupillary response are captured as a surrogate of the cognitive state of the reviewer (e.g., mental workload) and inexpensive desktop eye-trackers compatible with the software development settings. This work uses Artificial Intelligence techniques to predict the cognitive load from the extracted biomarkers and classify each code region according to a set of features. The final evaluation considers various factors such as code complexity, time of the code review, the experience level of the reviewer, and other factors. Our experimental results show the approach could predict the review quality with 87.77%±4.65 accuracy and a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.85 (p-value < 0.001) between the predicted and the actual review performance. This evaluation validates the cognitive load measurement using electroencephalography (EEG) signals as ground truth for the HRV and pupil signals.

Recent studies have shown that programmers' cognitive load during typical code development activities can be assessed using wearable and low intrusive devices that capture peripheral physiological responses driven by the autonomic nervous system. In particular, measures such as heart rate variability (HRV) and pupillography can be acquired by nonintrusive devices and provide accurate indication of programmers' cognitive load and attention level in code related tasks, which are known elements of human error that potentially lead to software faults. This paper presents an experimental study designed to evaluate the possibility of using HRV and pupillography together with eye tracking to identify and annotate specific code lines (or even finer grain lexical tokens) of the program under development (or under inspection) with information on the cognitive load of the programmer while dealing with such lines of code. The experimental data is discussed in the paper to assess different alternatives for using code annotations representing programmers' cognitive load while producing or reading code. In particular, we propose the use of biofeedback code highlighting techniques to provide online programmer's warnings for potentially problematic code lines that may need a second look at (to remove possible bugs), and biofeedback-driven software testing to optimize testing effort, focusing the tests on code areas with higher bug probability.