Submmissions and Article Guidelines for Authors

Straight forward guide

Over to Human Computer Interaction and Human Physiological Response Research Writing.

Writing a Human‑Computer Interaction (HCI) paper that also reports physiological responses is a unique challenge. You have to juggle two research cultures—cognitive‑behavioral HCI and biological‑signal analysis—while keeping the paper readable for a broad audience.

This guidelines walks you through the entire lifecycle of a Human‑Computer Interaction + Human Physiological Response manuscript, from framing the research question to polishing the final draft. Template sections have tripped up many first‑time authors a simle start is to write a one‑sentence “research identity” that you can paste into your abstract, intro, and conclusion.

Also available in .docx formats.

Title

Adaptive Haptic Feedback Reduces Cognitive Load in VR: Evidence from NASA‑TLX and Pupil Dilation

• Authors
• First Author¹, Second Author², …
• Abstract (150‑250 words)
• Background: Briefly state the HCI problem and physiological gap.
• Objective: One sentence of the research question.
• Method: Participants, design, measures, analysis.
• Results: Key statistics (e.g., “Feedback reduced TLX scores by 12 % (d=0.68, p=.01) and pupil dilation by 0.15 mm (d=0.54, p=.03)”).
• Conclusion: What it means for design and future work.
• Introduction
• *Motivation* – Why adaptive feedback matters (cite HCI works).
• *Physiological relevance* – Why pupil dilation is a valid load marker (cite physiology).
• *Research Gap* – No prior work links the two in VR.
• *Contributions* – List 3 bullet points (design, measurement pipeline, empirical findings).
• Related Work
• Adaptive interfaces → HCI literature.
• Physiological metrics of cognitive load → bio-signal literature.
• Prior multimodal studies → synthesis & gap.
• Method
• Participants (N, demographics, recruitment).
• Apparatus (VR headset, haptic module, eye‑tracker).
• Experimental Design (within‑subjects, counterbalanced).
• Procedure (step‑by‑step timeline, sync pulse description).
• Measures
• *Subjective*: NASA‑TLX (7‑point Likert).
• *Physiological*: Pupil dilation (baseline‑corrected).
• *Performance*: Task completion time, error rate.
• Data preprocessing (blink interpolation, filter settings).
• Statistical Analysis (LMEM, effect sizes).

Results

• Descriptive statistics (means, SD).
• Hypothesis 1: TLX → t‑test, Cohen’s d, CI.
• Hypothesis 2: Pupil → LMEM, β, p, d.
• Exploratory: Correlation TLX ↔ pupil (Pearson r).
• Figures (box‑plots, time‑series).

Discussion

• Interpretation: How adaptive feedback reduces load (both subjective & physiological).
• Theoretical implications: Extends *cognitive‑affective loop* model.
• Design guidelines: When to deploy haptic cues.
• Limitations: Sample size, lab vs field, eye‑tracker accuracy.
• Future work: Real‑time adaptive loop using pupil as input.

Conclusion

• One paragraph summarizing the main finding and its broader impact.

Acknowledgments

• Funding bodies, lab assistants.

References

• Follow the venue’s style (ACM, IEEE, APA). Use a reference manager (Zotero, Mendeley) to keep it tidy.

Appendices (optional)

Full preprocessing script (MATLAB/ Python).

Raw data availability statement (e.g., OSF link).

Write for Four Audiences Simultaneously:

Informed Consent Include a statement,that participants were briefed on physiological monitoring and data storage.All completed articles and papers can be submitted by filling out the form below and uploading your article. Scroll down⬇️