## 4 Execution and Results
### Disturbance  
On the basis of the questionnaire survey (Appendix B), the degree of disturbance of individual data collection methods was assessed. All methods were evaluated using the seven-level Likert scale, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Participant** & **FINDF** & **FITF** & **AV\_VIDEO** & **Glasses** \\ \hline P04 & 0.92\% & 3.73\% & 95.35\% & No \\ P06 & 3.89\% & 16.52\% & 79.59\% & No \\ P07 & 3.78\% & 2.76\% & 93.46\% & No \\ P08 & 1.91\% & 5.47\% & 92.62\% & No \\ P09 & 6.23\% & 25.67\% & 68.10\% & No \\ P10 & 5.64\% & 22.47\% & 71.89\% & Yes \\ P11 & 0.44\% & 2.84\% & 96.72\% & No \\ P12 & 7.10\% & 33.83\% & 59.06\% & Yes \\ P13 & 4.53\% & 28.16\% & 67.31\% & Yes \\ P14 & 3.70\% & 11.72\% & 84.58\% & No \\ P15 & 2.17\% & 0.86\% & 96.97\% & No \\ P16 & 4.73\% & 13.58\% & 81.69\% & No \\ P17 & 5.92\% & 5.79\% & 88.29\% & No \\ P18 & 2.95\% & 5.10\% & 91.95\% & No \\ P19 & 5.88\% & 36.41\% & 57.71\% & Yes \\ P20 & 31.54\% & 19.96\% & 48.51\% & No \\ P21 & 39.46\% & 7.87\% & 52.67\% & No \\ P22 & 2.52\% & 4.77\% & 92.71\% & No \\ P23 & 44.79\% & 50.23\% & 4.98\% & Yes \\ P24 & 1.67\% & 13.18\% & 85.16\% & Yes \\ P25 & 2.63\% & 4.22\% & 93.14\% & No \\ P26 & 4.11\% & 50.73\% & 45.16\% & Yes \\ P27 & 3.95\% & 3.46\% & 92.59\% & No \\ P28 & 4.87\% & 3.23\% & 91.91\% & No \\ P29 & 12.10\% & 10.44\% & 77.45\% & No \\ P30 & 1.71\% & 2.99\% & 95.30\% & No \\ P31 & 3.51\% & 16.19\% & 80.31\% & No \\ P32 & 2.22\% & 8.02\% & 89.75\% & No \\ P33 & 13.42\% & 30.58\% & 56.00\% & No \\ P34 & 10.65\% & 54.71\% & 34.64\% & Yes \\ P35 & 9.29\% & 20.27\% & 70.44\% & Yes \\ P36 & 5.08\% & 7.49\% & 87.42\% & No \\ P37 & 2.04\% & 4.41\% & 93.55\% & No \\ P38 & 2.24\% & 3.72\% & 94.04\% & No \\ P39 & 1.33\% & 0.96\% & 97.72\% & No \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Availability of video-based emotion recognition. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **FIND** & **FIT** & **AV** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**All**} & **Mean** & 7.40\% & 15.21\% & 77.39\% \\  & **SD** & 10.28\% & 15.06\% & 21.35\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No Glasses**} & **Mean** & 6.36\% & 8.55\% & 85.09\% \\  & **SD** & 9.15\% & 7.66\% & 13.97\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Glasses**} & **Mean** & 10.41\% & 34.44\% & 55.15\% \\  & **SD** & 13.17\% & 14.86\% & 24.04\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Average availability of video-based emotion recognition. where a value of 1 corresponded to the claim that the method was unnoticeable, and a value of 7 indicated that it made the work impossible. Figure 5 shows the compilation of response distributions for all the examined channels. Among the physiological sensors used in the study, the respondents pointed to the EDA sensor placed on the wrist as being the least cumbersome. As many as 16 respondents indicated that it was completely unnoticeable during coding, while only 3 were moderately disturbed. The next two sensors, a respiration device placed on the chest and a BVP placed on the earlobe, were also rated as slightly intrusive. The last physiological sensor, the fEMG device, was considered the most cumbersome. Figure 5: Disturbance rating distribution of channels. Other methods of collecting data for the purpose of emotion recognition were found by most respondents to be almost completely unnoticeable. Because of the bright light set, the camera that recorded the participant's face was evaluated slightly worse. However, the result of the assessment was still lower than the rating of the least intrusive physiological sensor. Among all the tested methods of emotional recognition, the participants indicated the eye tracker as being the most acceptable in everyday work. Only one person did not indicate this method. Over half of the respondents reported that they would not be disturbed by collecting mouse movements and typing patterns (85.7%), by video camera recording (65.7%), by SAM (62.9%) or by EDA (62.9%).