Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sebastian Höffner
dblp:252/6450
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0002-1609-6049ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers |
Immersive interaction · 67% Usability and user experience research · 33% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Immersive interaction › virtual reality
in-VR questionnaires |
0.6 | 2 | 2020 | Examining Design Choices of Questionnaires in VR User Studies · CHI 2020 Breaking The Experience: Effects of Questionnaires in VR User Studies · CHI 2020 |
Usability and user experience research › evaluation methodology
presence measurement |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Breaking The Experience: Effects of Questionnaires in VR User Studies · CHI 2020 |
Immersive interaction
virtual reality |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Examining Design Choices of Questionnaires in VR User Studies · CHI 2020 |
Immersive interaction
virtual reality user study |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Breaking The Experience: Effects of Questionnaires in VR User Studies · CHI 2020 |
Usability and user experience research › evaluation methodology
questionnaire administration |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Breaking The Experience: Effects of Questionnaires in VR User Studies · CHI 2020 |
Usability and user experience research › evaluation methodology
questionnaire design |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Examining Design Choices of Questionnaires in VR User Studies · CHI 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
user study · 0.9survey · 0.4physiological measurement · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Foundations of the Socio-Physical Model of Activities (SOMA) for Autonomous Robotic AgentsabstractIn this paper, we present foundations of the Socio-physical Model of Activities (SOMA). SOMA represents both the physical as well as the social context of everyday activities. Such tasks seem to be trivial for humans, however, they pose severe problems for artificial agents. For starters, a natural language command requesting something will leave many pieces of information necessary for performing the task unspecified. Humans can solve such problems fast as we reduce the search space by recourse to prior knowledge such as a connected collection of plans that describe how certain goals can be achieved at various levels of abstraction. Rather than enumerating fine-grained physical contexts SOMA sets out to include socially constructed knowledge about the functions of actions to achieve a variety of goals or the roles objects can play in a given situation. As the human cognition system is capable of generalizing experiences into abstract knowledge pieces applicable to novel situations, we argue that both physical and social context need be modeled to tackle these challenges in a general manner. The central contribution of this work, therefore, lies in a comprehensive model connecting physical and social entities, that enables flexibility of executions by the robotic agents via symbolic reasoning with the model. This is, by and large, facilitated by the link between the physical and social context in SOMA where relationships are established between occurrences and generalizations of them, which has been demonstrated in several use cases in the domain of everyday activites that validate SOMA. Daniel Beßler, Robert Porzel, Mihai Pomarlan, Abhijit Vyas, Sebastian Höffner, Michael Beetz, Rainer Malaka, John A. Bateman |
FOIS | 5 |
| 2020 | Examining Design Choices of Questionnaires in VR User StudiesabstractQuestionnaires are among the most common research tools in virtual reality (VR) user studies. Transitioning from virtuality to reality for giving self-reports on VR experiences can lead to systematic biases. VR allows to embed questionnaires into the virtual environment which may ease participation and avoid biases. To provide a cohesive picture of methods and design choices for questionnaires in VR (inVRQ), we discuss 15 inVRQ studies from the literature and present a survey with 67 VR experts from academia and industry. Based on the outcomes, we conducted two user studies in which we tested different presentation and interaction methods of inVRQs and evaluated the usability and practicality of our design. We observed comparable completion times between inVRQs and questionnaires outside VR (nonVRQs) with higher enjoyment but lower usability for \inVRQs. These findings advocate the application of inVRQs and provide an overview of methods and considerations that lay the groundwork for inVRQ design. Dmitry Alexandrovsky, Susanne Putze, Michael Bonfert, Sebastian Höffner, Pitt Michelmann, Dirk Wenig, Rainer Malaka, Jan D. Smeddinck |
CHI | 4 |
| 2020 | Breaking The Experience: Effects of Questionnaires in VR User StudiesabstractQuestionnaires are among the most common research tools in virtual reality (VR) evaluations and user studies. However, transitioning from virtual worlds to the physical world to respond to VR experience questionnaires can potentially lead to systematic biases. Administering questionnaires in VR (inVRQs) is becoming more common in contemporary research. This is based on the intuitive notion that inVRQs may ease participation, reduce the Break in Presence (BIP) and avoid biases. In this paper, we perform a systematic investigation into the effects of interrupting the VR experience through questionnaires using physiological data as a continuous and objective measure of presence. In a user study (n=50), we evaluated question-asking procedures using a VR shooter with two different levels of immersion. The users rated their player experience with a questionnaire either inside or outside of VR. Our results indicate a reduced BIP for the employed inVRQ without affecting the self-reported player experience. Susanne Putze, Dmitry Alexandrovsky, Felix Putze, Sebastian Höffner, Jan D. Smeddinck, Rainer Malaka |
CHI | 4 |