Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Kianna Ng

dblp:374/8530 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-8927-9690ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 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
1 paper
Interaction techniques and input · 77% Haptics and multimodal interaction · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Interaction techniques and input
text entry
0.812024
Investigating the Effects of Self-selected Pleasant Scents on Text Composition and Transcription Performance · CHI 2024
Haptics and multimodal interaction › olfactory interfaces
olfactory display
0.212024
Investigating the Effects of Self-selected Pleasant Scents on Text Composition and Transcription Performance · CHI 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

scent diffusion · 0.8empirical study · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Investigating the Effects of Self-selected Pleasant Scents on Text Composition and Transcription Performance
abstract
The extensive use of computers for text entry has been linked to increased stress, depression, and sleep disturbances, adversely affecting performance. Recent trends involve using scent diffusers to counter these effects. However, the impact of scents on text entry performance is not well-studied. Our empirical study investigated the effects of self-selected pleasant scents on text composition and transcription performance. Results showed that while composing, users were slower with a scent present, potentially due to heightened focus on text quality. Scent did not alter accuracy or text length. In transcription tasks, although scent did not alter typing speed, it adversely affected accuracy, likely due to its impact on concentration levels. Despite these mixed results, users felt more effective and enjoyed the scent, indicating a preference for its continued use. This study opens avenues for further research into scents’ influence on computer-based tasks, potentially contributing to the evolving field of olfactory displays.
Wendy Haw, Kianna Ng, Ahmed Sabbir Arif
CHI3