arXiv subjects

Daniela Grassi

Publications and source records attributed to Daniela Grassi.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Using Biometrics to Understand AI-Assisted Coding Performance and its Perception

AI-based code assistants are transforming software development, yet we lack empirical evidence on how they affect developers' cognitive processes. We present a multisite study investigating the neurophysiological correlates of AI-assisted programming through a within-subjects crossover design. We recruited participants at two universities (Bari, Italy, and Copenhagen, Denmark) and collected electroencephalography, eye-tracking, electrodermal activity, and heart rate variability data alongside a rubric-based performance score and self-reported workload across six dimensions using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). We tested four hypotheses addressing physiological differences between AI-assisted and non-assisted conditions, the moderating role of developer experience, the association between physiology and performance, and the alignment between subjective perceptions and objective measures. Under AI assistance, the EEG $\theta/\alpha$ ratio was lower during the first task and the gaze blink rate was higher during the second, both consistent with reduced cognitive engagement when developers offload generative effort to the model. This pattern did not differ between undergraduate and graduate students. Electrodermal activity correlated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. Among the six NASA-TLX dimensions of self-reported workload, only Physical demand was associated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. These findings suggest that AI-assisted programming is not a faster version of solo coding but a cognitively distinct activity, with implications for the design of AI assistants and for biometric monitoring in AI-augmented development.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Exploring Engagement in Hybrid Meetings

Background. The widespread adoption of hybrid work following the COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally transformed software development practices, introducing new challenges in communication and collaboration as organizations transition from traditional office-based structures to flexible working arrangements. This shift has established a new organizational norm where even traditionally office-first companies now embrace hybrid team structures. While remote participation in meetings has become commonplace in this new environment, it may lead to isolation, alienation, and decreased engagement among remote team members. Aims. This study aims to identify and characterize engagement patterns in hybrid meetings through objective measurements, focusing on the differences between co-located and remote participants. Method. We studied professionals from three software companies over several weeks, employing a multimodal approach to measure engagement. Data were collected through self-reported questionnaires and physiological measurements using biometric devices during hybrid meetings to understand engagement dynamics. Results. The regression analyses revealed comparable engagement levels between onsite and remote participants, though remote participants show lower engagement in long meetings regardless of participation mode. Active roles positively correlate with higher engagement, while larger meetings and afternoon sessions are associated with lower engagement. Conclusions. Our results offer insights into factors associated with engagement and disengagement in hybrid meetings, as well as potential meeting improvement recommendations. These insights are potentially relevant not only for software teams but also for knowledge-intensive organizations across various sectors facing similar hybrid collaboration challenges.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

A Multimodal Approach Combining Biometrics and Self-Report Instruments for Monitoring Stress in Programming: Methodological Insights

The study of well-being, stress and other human factors has traditionally relied on self-report instruments to assess key variables. However, concerns about potential biases in these instruments, even when thoroughly validated and standardised, have driven growing interest in alternatives in combining these measures with more objective methods, such as physiological measures. We aimed to (i) compare psychometric stress measures and biometric indicators and (ii) identify stress-related patterns in biometric data during software engineering tasks. We conducted an experiment where participants completed a pre-survey, then programmed two tasks wearing biometric sensors, answered brief post-surveys for each, and finally went through a short exit interview. Our results showed diverse outcomes; we found no stress in the psychometric instruments. Participants in the interviews reported a mix of feeling no stress and experiencing time pressure. Finally, the biometrics showed a significant difference only in EDA phasic peaks. We conclude that our chosen way of inducing stress by imposing a stricter time limit was insufficient. We offer methodological insights for future studies working with stress, biometrics, and psychometric instruments.

cs.SE↗