How Are We Connected? - Measuring Audience Galvanic Skin Response of Connected Performances

Chen Wang, Xintong Zhu, Erik Geelhoed, Ian Biscoe, Thomas Röggla, Pablo Cesar


Accurately measuring the audience response during a performance is a difficult task. This is particularly the case for connected performances. In this paper, we staged a connected performance in which a remote audience enjoyed the performance in real-time. Both objective (galvanic skin response and behaviours) and subjective (interviews) responses from the live and remote audience members were recorded. To capture galvanic skin response, a group of self-built sensors was used to record the electrical conductance of the skin. The results of the measurements showed that both the live and the remote audience members had a similar response to the connected performance even though more vivid artistic artefacts had a stronger effect on the live audience. Some technical issues also influenced the experience of the remote audience. In conclusion we found that the remoteness had little influence on the connected performance.


  1. Bakhshi, H., Mateos-Garcia, J. and Throsby, D. 2010. Beyond Live: digital innvoation in the performing arts. [Accessed 10 February 2016]. Available from:
  2. Bennett, S. 2013. Theatre Audiences. Routledge.
  3. Bradley, M. M., Greenwald, M. K., Petry, M. C. and Lang, P.J. 1992. Remembering pictures: pleasure and arousal in memory. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition. 18(2), pp.379-390.
  4. Chanel, G., Rebetez, C., Bétrancourt, M. and Pun, T. 2008. Boredom, engagement and anxiety as indicators for adaptation to difficulty in games. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Entertainment and media in the ubiquitous era - MindTrek 7808., p.13.
  5. Dance, T. 2010. Exploring the Design Space in. Evolution., pp.2995-3000.
  6. Dmochowski, J. P., Bezdek, M. A., Abelson, B. P., Johnson, J. S., Schumacher, E.H. and Parra, L.C. 2014. Audience preferences are predicted by temporal reliability of neural processing. Nature Communications. 5, pp.1-9.
  7. Fleureau, J., Guillotel, P. and Orlac, I. 2013. Affective benchmarking of movies based on the physiological responses of a real audience. Proceedings - 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, ACII 2013., pp.73-77.
  8. Gonzalez, B., Carroll, E. and Latulipe, C. 2012. Danceinspired technology, technology-inspired dance. Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on HumanComputer Interaction Making Sense Through Design - NordiCHI 7812., p.398.
  9. Latulipe, C., Charlotte, C., Carroll, E. a and Lottridge, D. 2011. Love , Hate , Arousal and Engagement?: Exploring Audience Responses to Performing Arts. Performing arts., pp.1845-1854.
  10. Lunn, D. and Harper, S. 2010. Using galvanic skin response measures to identify areas of frustration for older web 2.0 users. W4A 10 Proceedings of the 2010 International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility W4A. (January), pp.1-10.
  11. Mandryk, R. L. 2004. Objectively evaluating entertainment technology. Extended abstracts of the 2004 conference on Human factors and computing systems., p.1057..
  12. O'Brian, H. and MacLean, K. E. 2009. Measuring the User Engagement Process. Advances., pp.1-6.
  13. Picard, R. W. 1995. Affective Computing.
  14. Posner, J., Russell, J. A. and Peterson, B.S. 2005. The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. 17, pp.715-734.
  15. Radbourne, J., Johanson, K., Glow, H. and White, T. 2009. The Audience Experience: Measuring Quality in the Performing Arts. International Journal of Arts Management., 11(3), pp.16-29.
  16. Reason, M. 2010. The Young Audience: Exploring and Enhancing Children's Experiences of Theatre. Trentham Books Ltd.
  17. Roto, V., Obrist, M. and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. 2009. User experience evaluation methods in academic and industrial contexts. In: Interact 2009 conference, User Experience Evaluation Methods in Product Development (UXEM'09).
  18. Ruan, S., Chen, L., Sun, J. and Chen, G. 2009. Study on the Change of Physiological Signals During Playing Bodycontrolled Games In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computer Enterntainment Technology., pp. 349-352.
  19. Russell, J. A. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 39(6), pp.1161- 1178.
  20. Sauro, J. and Lewis, J. R. 2012. Chapter 2 - Quantifying User Research In: Quantifying the User Experience., pp. 9-18.
  21. Sawchuk, A. A., Chew, E., Zimmermann, R., Papadopoulos, C. and Kyriakakis, C. 2003. From remote media immersion to distributed immersive performance In: 2003 ACM SIGMM Workshop on Experiential Telepresence, ETP 7803., pp. 110-120.
  22. Sheppard, R. M., Kamali, M., Rivas, R., Tamai, M., Yang, Z., Wu, W. and Nahrstedt, K. 2008. Advancing interactive collaborative mediums through teleimmersive dance (TED): a symbiotic creativity and design environment for art and computer science. Digital Media., pp.579-588.
  23. Stevens, C. J., Schubert, E., Morris, R. H., Frear, M., Chen, J., Healey, S., Schoknecht, C. and Hansen, S. 2009. Cognition and the temporal arts: Investigating audience response to dance using PDAs that record continuous data during live performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 67(9), pp.800-813.
  24. Wang, C., Geelhoed, E. N., Stenton, P. P. and Cesar, P. 2014. Sensing a live audience In: CHI 7814., pp. 1909- 1912.
  25. Wang, C., Wong, J., Zhu, X., Roggla, T., Jansen, J. and Cesar, P. 2016. Quantifying Audience Experience in the Wild: Heuristics for Developing and Deploying a Biosensor Infrastructure in Theaters. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX2016).
  26. Yang, Z., Yu, B., Wu, W., Nahrstedt, K., Diankov, R. and Bajscy, R. 2006. A Study of Collaborative Dancing in Tele-immersive Environments In: Eighth IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia, 2006. (ISM'06)., pp. 177-184.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Wang C., Zhu X., Geelhoed E., Biscoe I., Röggla T. and Cesar P. (2016). How Are We Connected? - Measuring Audience Galvanic Skin Response of Connected Performances . In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems - Volume 1: PhyCS, ISBN 978-989-758-197-7, pages 33-42. DOI: 10.5220/0005939100330042

in Bibtex Style

author={Chen Wang and Xintong Zhu and Erik Geelhoed and Ian Biscoe and Thomas Röggla and Pablo Cesar},
title={How Are We Connected? - Measuring Audience Galvanic Skin Response of Connected Performances},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems - Volume 1: PhyCS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems - Volume 1: PhyCS,
TI - How Are We Connected? - Measuring Audience Galvanic Skin Response of Connected Performances
SN - 978-989-758-197-7
AU - Wang C.
AU - Zhu X.
AU - Geelhoed E.
AU - Biscoe I.
AU - Röggla T.
AU - Cesar P.
PY - 2016
SP - 33
EP - 42
DO - 10.5220/0005939100330042