Why the study?
Current measurement approaches assessing flow via post-task self-report scales are limited by obtrusiveness and lack of real-time support.
Can a Random Forest classifier using heart rate variability (HRV) accurately distinguish high and low flow states in workers?
Can a Random Forest classifier using heart rate variability (HRV) accurately distinguish high and low flow states in workers?
Heart rate variability can be used with machine learning to classify psychological flow states with moderate accuracy, offering a potential real-time, unobtrusive measurement tool.
The focal role of flow in promoting desirable outcomes in companies, such as increased employees’ well-being and performance, led scholars to study flow in the context of work. However, current measurement approaches which assess flow via self-report scales after task execution are limited due to obtrusiveness and a lack of real-time support. Hence, new measurement approaches must be created to overcome these limitations. In this article, we use cardiac features (heart rate variability; HRV) and a Random Forest classifier to distinguish high and low flow. Our results from a large-scale lab experiment with 158 participants and a field study with nine participants reveal, that with HRV features alone, flow-classifiers can be built with an accuracy of 68.5 percent (lab) and 70.6 percent (field). Our research contributes to the challenge of developing a less obtrusive, real-time measurement method of flow based on physiological features and to investigate flow from a physiological perspective. Our findings may serve as foundation for future work aiming to build physio-adaptive systems which can improve employee's performance. For instance, these systems could ensure that no notifications are forwarded to employees when they are ‘sensing’ flow.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rissler et al. (2020) studied Flow state at work (n=167). Heart rate variability (HRV) features and Random Forest classifier was evaluated on Accuracy of distinguishing high and low flow.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: