Ontologies in human–computer interaction: A systematic literature review

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Simone Dornelas Costa ◽  
Monalessa Perini Barcellos ◽  
Ricardo de Almeida Falbo

Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) is a multidisciplinary area that involves a diverse body of knowledge and a complex landscape of concepts, which can lead to semantic problems, hampering communication and knowledge transfer. Ontologies have been successfully used to solve semantics and knowledge-related problems in several domains. This paper presents a systematic literature review that investigated the use of ontologies in the HCI domain. The main goal was to find out how HCI ontologies have been used and developed. 35 ontologies were identified. As a result, we noticed that they cover different HCI aspects, such as user interface, interaction phenomenon, pervasive computing, user modeling / profile, HCI design, interaction experience and adaptive interactive system. Although there are overlaps, we did not identify reuse among the 35 analyzed ontologies. The ontologies have been used mainly to support knowledge representation and reasoning. Although ontologies have been used in HCI for more than 25 years, their use became more frequent in the last decade, when ontologies address a higher number of HCI aspects and are represented as both conceptual and computational models. Concerning how ontologies have been developed, we noticed that some good practices of ontology engineering have not been followed. Considering that the quality of an ontology directly influences the quality of the solution built based on it, we believe that there is an opportunity for HCI and ontology engineering professionals to get closer to build better and more effective ontologies, as well as ontology-based solutions.

2019 ◽  
Vol 129 ◽  
pp. 74-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tijana Vuletic ◽  
Alex Duffy ◽  
Laura Hay ◽  
Chris McTeague ◽  
Gerard Campbell ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 1409 ◽  
pp. 012002
Author(s):  
G M Martinez-Toro ◽  
G C Ariza-Zabala ◽  
D W Rico Bautista ◽  
E Romero-Riaño

Author(s):  
Judy Van Biljon ◽  
Karen Renaud

The human–computer interaction for development (HCI4D) field emerged at the intersection of the fields of information and communication technology for development (ICT4D) and human–computer interaction (HCI). In 2010, Michael Best nominated HCI4D as one of ICT4D’s “grand challenges”. This HCI4D field is now entering its second decade, and it is important to reflect on the research that has been conducted, and to consider how HCI4D researchers have addressed the challenge that constitutes the raison d’être of HCI4D’s existence. Best provided four guidelines to inform researchers embracing this challenge. This study commences by identifying the primary HCI4D-specific themes, and then carries out a systematic literature review of the HCI4D literature to build a corpus to support the analysis. The corpus is analysed to reflect on how well the field’s practices align with Best’s guidelines. The overall finding is that HCI4D researchers have largely been following Best’s guidelines and that the HCI4D field is demonstrating encouraging signs of emerging maturity.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin Petrescu ◽  
Florian Popescu ◽  
Alina Gligor

AbstractUsing blended learning method, Blast Furnace subject was analysed inside the DidaTec Project. The analysed factors were the quality of presentation, quantity of information per page and human – computer interaction. The analysis shows the preference of students to work with different learning environments.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1337.2-1337
Author(s):  
T. W. Swinnen ◽  
M. Willems ◽  
I. Jonkers ◽  
F. P. Luyten ◽  
J. Vanrenterghem ◽  
...  

Background:The personal and societal burden of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) urges the research community to identify factors that predict its onset and progression. A mechanistic understanding of disease is currently lacking but needed to develop targeted interventions. Traditionally, risk factors for KOA are termed ‘local’ to the joint or ‘systemic’ referring to whole-body systems. There are however clear indications in the scientific literature that contextual factors such as socioeconomic position merit further scientific scrutiny, in order to justify a more biopsychosocial view on risk factors in KOA.Objectives:The aims of this systematic literature review were to assess the inclusion of socioeconomic factors in KOA research and to identify the impact of socioeconomic factors on pain and function in KOA.Methods:Major bibliographic databases, namely Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane, were independently screened by two reviewers (plus one to resolve conflicts) to identify research articles dealing with socioeconomic factors in the KOA population without arthroplasty. Included studies had to quantify the relationship between socioeconomic factors and pain or function. Main exclusion criteria were: a qualitative design, subject age below 16 years and articles not written in English or Dutch. Methodological quality was assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized (ROB-II) and non-randomized intervention studies (ROBIN-I) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies. Due to heterogeneity of studies with respect to outcomes assessed and analyses performed, no meta-analysis was performed.Results:Following de-duplication, 7639 articles were available for screening (120 conflicts resolved without a third reader). In 4112 articles, the KOA population was confirmed. 1906 (25%) were excluded because of knee arthroplasty and 1621 (21%) because of other issues related to the population definition. Socioeconomic factors could not be identified in 4058 (53%) papers and were adjusted for in 211 (3%) articles. In the remaining papers covering pain (n=110) and/or function (n=81), education (62%) and race (37%) were most frequently assessed as socioeconomic factors. A huge variety of mainly dichotomous or ordinal socioeconomic outcomes was found without further methodological justification nor sensitivity analysis to unravel the impact of selected categories. Although the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was the most popular instrument to assess pain and function, data pooling was not possible as socioeconomic factors estimates were part of multilevel models in most studies. Overall results showed that lower education and African American race were consistent predictors of pain and poor function, but those effects diminished or disappeared when psychological aspects (e.g. discrimination) or poverty estimates were taken into account. When function was assessed using self-reported outcomes, the impact of socioeconomic factors was more clear versus performance-based instruments. Quality of research was low to moderate and the moderating or mediating impact of socioeconomic factors on intervention effects in KOA is understudied.Conclusion:Research on contextual socioeconomic factors in KOA is insufficiently addressed and their assessment is highly variable methodologically. Following this systematic literature review, we can highlight the importance of implementing a standardised and feasible set of socioeconomic outcomes in KOA trials1, as well as the importance of public availability of research databases including these factors. Future research should prioritise the underlying mechanisms in the effect of especially education and race on pain and function and assess its impact on intervention effects to fuel novel (non-)pharmacological approaches in KOA.References:[1]Smith TO et al. The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis J Rheumatol 2019. 46:981–9.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document