ISASE2023

Multi-layered and multidimensional structure
explaining impressions of hug scenes
Yumeka Ogura*, Shogo Okamoto* and Yuki Kosuge**Tokyo Metropolitan University, 6-6Asahigaoka, Hino-shi, Tokyo 191-0065, Japan

Abstract: The overall evaluation of audio-visual content pertains to viewers’ affective experiences while watching them. We
investigated these experiences and their mutual relationships by using scenes from movies with hug scenes. We selected 36 adjectives
to describe the impressions of the videos and classified them into three layers: psychophysical, affective, and evaluative, based on auser study involving seven participants. They scored each of the 24 videos containing hug scenes according to these adjectives. The
connections between the three layers were computed based on the scores of the adjectives. The four psychophysical factors influenced
the four affective factors, which determined two overall evaluation factors: joyful and reassuring. The results will help develop
strategies to enhance viewers’ emotional experiences while watching emotional video scenes and the criteria for evaluating emotional
intensities.
Keywords: Psychophysical, Emotional, Evaluative

attributes into three layers based on their meanings. The
three layers were overall-evaluative, affective, andpsychophysical factors [6]. We then determined thestructure of these factors. Our findings are expected toprovide a better understanding of emotionally appealing
videos and the guidelines for their evaluation.
The study was approved by Institutional Review Board,
Hino Campus, Tokyo Metropolitan University (22-014).

1. INTRODUCTION
Emotional experiences during various activities, such as
viewing videos, reading, travelling, and playing sports,
have a significant impact on the judgment of their values[1]. Analyzing the components of emotional experiencesis helpful for understanding the judgments anddetermining measures to enhance emotional experiences.
This may also lead to the development of a criterion forevaluating these emotional experiences. Considering theease of experimentation and generality of the stimuli, thisstudy analyzed human responses to psychophysical,
affective, and preferential questionnaire items while
viewing emotional scenes where humans are hugging.
Many previous studies have decomposed thesatisfaction or overall evaluation of emotionally appealing
stimuli into multiple affective factors [1, 2] while others
have attempted to predict affective experiences from thepsychophysical aspects of the stimuli [3, 4, 5]. The former
identifies the components of overall satisfaction, but does
not aim to provide guidelines for designing stimuli withhigher satisfaction. The latter directly provides suchguidelines, but does not seek to facilitate an understandingof the components that form the overall evaluation.
We collected subjective evaluations of hug scenes
regarding attributes, including overall-evaluative,affective, and psychophysical aspects. Participantsevaluated each video containing a hug scene in terms ofthese aspects. In addition, they classified evaluation

2. Methods
2.1 Participants
Seven university students and lecturers participated in
the experiment after providing written informed consent.
2.2 Stimuli: Videos of hugging scenes
Twenty-four videos, ranging from 4 s to 23 s in length,were selected by the authors and their collaborators basedon the following criteria: Videos, including hugging
scenes between two people or between a human and ananimal, were collected from online video sites. Various
hugging scenes were selected, but videos with similar
scenes were not included in the final video set.
Furthermore, videos featuring one or two of the four typesof emotions, that is, pleasantness, unpleasantness, arousal,
and sleepiness that form the Russell’s circumplex model
were included.
2.3 Adjective attributes used to evaluate hugging

1

Figure 1: Three-layered structure of impressions toward hug scenes. The values nearby the arrows are the coefficients todetermine the magnitudes of influences from the lower layer.
votes for a certain adjective, the layer was determinedthrough a discussion and consensus among theresearchers. A similar method was adopted in [4].
The 9-grade evaluation results were normalized withz-scores within the individual, and principal component
analysis was applied to the evaluation words in each layer.
Principal components with one or more eigen values wereadopted using the Kaiser-Guttman criterion. For clarity,
the principal components were subjected to a promax
rotation.
Multiple regression analysis was applied to the upperand middle layers, and the middle and lower layers, withthe upper layer principal components as the objectivevariable and the lower layer principal components locatedone level below it as the explanatory variable, to see theassociation between the principal component layers.

scenesFifty-nine words from the websites relating to hugs thatwere searched using search engines were selected as
evaluation words for hugging. Selected words that were
not adjectives were converted into adjectives.
Onomatopoeias were not included in these words. We
then determined 36 adjectives in a check-all-that-applymanner, in which all adjectives that could be used toexpress hug scenes were selected by participants.
2.4 Tasks
The participants watched 24 videos, including hug
scenes that were presented in random order. Theyevaluated each video on a grade of 9 for each of the 36
adjectives with 9 being “very” to 1 being “little,” and 5
being “neutral.”
They were then asked to categorize the adjectives into
oneof
thethreelayers,
psychophysical,
affective/psychological, and evaluative/preferential. Eachadjective had to be assigned to only one category in aforced-choice manner. Definitions of each category werepresented to the participants. The psychophysical layer
was explained by the physical properties of the hugging
motion that could be judged. The affective/psychologicallayer was determined by one’s past experiences andfeelings. The evaluative/preferential layer was anevaluation of the overall quality or preference of the hugs.

3. Results
Table 1 shows the result of categorizing the 36
adjectives into three layers. A total of 4 adjectives wereclassified in the evaluative layer, 19 in the affective layer,and 13 in the psychophysical layer.
Figure 1 presents the result of the principal component
analysis and multiple regression analysis. The values
located beside the arrows are the partial regression
coefficients from the lower principal component to one
level above the principal component. R²is the coefficientof determination, which indicates how well one principal
component is explained by the other principal
components below.
Only the significant partial regression coefficients were

2.5 Data analysis
The layers to which the 36 adjectives belonged weredetermined through voting. When two layers had equal2difficult to define, as possessive and mannish are usedsynonymously. Thus, the structure shown in Figure 1 islargely valid; though a user test for experimental
validation of semantic structures such as the one used in[7] was not applied in the present study.

Table 1: Categorization of adjectives
LayersAdjectives

Evaluative/
Preferential

reassuring, satisfying, joyful,attractive

Affective/
Psychologicalrelaxing, comforting, gentle,
stressful, loving, arousing,full-hearted, sweet,
sympathetic, exciting,enjoyable, possessive, sad,reliable, awkward, passionate,respectable, intimate, cheering

Psychophysicalphysically warm, closelycontacted, protecting,physically strong, dynamic,
forcible, violent, tight, sudden,
embracive, soft, feminine,passionate

5. Conclusion
We investigated the structure of affective experiences
while viewing hugging scenes, by determining thestructure of the three layers: evaluative, affective, andpsychophysical. These findings can be used to capture
highly rated hugging scenes, and the methodology
employed in this study is expected to be applicable toemotional scenes other than hugs.
REFFERENCES[1] Sameer Hosany and David Gilbert; Measuring tourists’emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday
destinations. Journal of Travel Research,
49(4),513–526, 2010.
[2] Robert Westbook and Richard Oliver; Thedimensionality of consumption emotion patterns andconsumer satisfaction. Journal of consumer research,
18(1), 84–91, 1991.
[3] David Thomson, Christopher Crocker, and C
Christopher Marketo; Linking sensory characteristics
to emotions: An example using dark chocolate. Food
Quality and Preference, 21(8), 1117–1125, 2010.
[4] Nanako Shimaoka, Shogo Okamoto, Yasuhiro
Akiyama, and Yoji Yamada; Linking temporal
dominance of sensations for primary-sensory andmulti-sensory attributes using canonical correlation
analysis. Foods, vol. 11, no. 6, article no. 781, 2022.
[5] Shogo Okamoto, Kohta Wakamatsu, Shigeki
Nakauchi, Jinhwan Kwon, and Maki Sakamoto;Computation of sensory-affective relationships
depending on material categories of pictorial stimuli.
IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 2020.
DOI: 10.1109/TAFFC.2020.3039684.
[6] Shogo Okamoto, Haruyo Kojima, Atsushi Yamagishi,Kyoichi Kato, and Atsuko Tamada; Layered-modelingof affective and sensory experiences using structural
equation modeling: Touch experiences of plastic
surfaces as an example. IEEE Transactions on
Affective Computing, 12(2), 429–438, 2021.
[7] Takumu Okada, Shogo Okamoto, and Yoji Yamada;
Affective dynamics: Causality modeling of temporally
evolving perceptual and affective responses. IEEETransactions on Affective Computing, 13(2), 628–639,
2019.

used. The evaluative layer was characterized by two
principal components: joyful and reassuring. There are
four affective layers: reliable and intimate, enjoyable andarousing, possessive, and relaxing. The psychophysicallayer was divided into four principal components:
dynamic, embracive, forcible, and mannish.
4. Discussion
Although the multiple regression analysis revealed thelinkages among the principal components in each layer, itis necessary to consider whether they are semanticallyvalid. In this section, we consider the principal
components that are connected, particularly those with thelargest partial regression coefficients.
Regarding the top layers, Figure 1 suggests thefollowing. Enjoyable and arousing hug scenes are morejoyful. Furthermore, relaxing scenes are reassuring. These
relationships were semantically natural. With regard to
the connections between the middle and bottom layers,
Figure 1 suggests the following. The embracive scenes led
to reliable and intimate, and relaxing experiences.
Although, this aligns with the general impressions of hug
scenes, the relationship between enjoyable and arousing
and the lowest-layer principal components had a low
coefficient of determination of 0.20 and was not fully
explained by the lower-layer components. Additional
psychophysical attributes may be required to explain
enjoyable and arousing. While the meanings ofpossessive and embracive are semantically valid, thenegative connection between possessive and mannish is3