Motivations and Actions of Human-Building Interactions from Environmental Momentary Assessments
November 13, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Comfort at the Extremes (CATE). Seville, Spain. November 2024
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Maharshi Pathak, SungKu Kang, Vanessa C. Whittem, Katherine Bassett, Michael B. Kane, David J. Fannon
arXiv ID
2511.10467
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Cross-listed
eess.SY
Citations
0
Venue
Comfort at the Extremes (CATE). Seville, Spain. November 2024
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
The expansion of renewable electricity generation, growing demands due to electrification, greater prevalence of working from home, and increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events, will place new demands on the electric supply and distribution grid. Broader adoption of demand response programs (DRPs) for the residential sector may help meet these challenges; however, experience shows that occupant overrides in DRPs compromises their effectiveness. There is a lack of formal understanding of how discomfort, routines, and other motivations affect DRP overrides and other related human building interactions (HBI). This paper reports preliminary findings from a study of 20 households in Colorado and Massachusetts, US over three months. Participants responded to ecological momentary assessments (EMA) triggered by thermostat interactions and at random times throughout the day. EMAs included Likert-scale questions of thermal preference, preference intensity, and changes to 7 different activity types that could affect thermal comfort, and an opened ended question about motivations of such actions. Twelve tags were developed to categorize motivation responses and analyzed statistically to identify associations between motivations, preferences, and HBI actions. Reactions to changes in the thermal environment were the most frequently observed motivation, 118 of 220 responses. On the other hand, 47% responses were at least partially motivated by non-thermal factors, suggesting limited utility for occupant behavior models founded solely on thermal comfort. Changes in activity level and clothing were less likely to be reported when EMAs were triggered by thermostat interactions, while fan interactions were more likely. Windows, shades, and portable heater interactions had no significant dependence on how the EMA was triggered.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted