A Survey on Emotion-Aware Programming Assistance Using Large Language Models, Eye-Gaze Analysis and Keystroke Dynamics

References

[1] Pankiewicz M, Baker RS. Navigating compiler errors with AI assistance—A study of GPT hints in an introductory programming course. In: Proc. 29th Annu. ACM Conf. Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE); 2024.

[2] Zhang Z, Dong Z, Shi Y, Price T, Matsuda N, Xu D. Students’ perceptions and preferences of generative artificial intelligence feedback for programming. Proc AAAI Conf Artif Intell. 2024;38(21):23250–23258.

[3] Kasneci E, et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences. 2023;103:102274.

[4] Yilmaz R, Karaoglan Yilmaz FG. Augmented intelligence in programming learning: Examining student views on the use of ChatGPT. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans. 2023;1(2):100005.

[5] Sarsa S, Denny P, Hellas A, Leinonen J. Automatic generation of programming exercises and code explanations using large language models. In: Proc. ACM Conf. Int. Computing Education Research (ICER); 2022. p. 27–43.

[6] Danry V, Hernandez J, Wilson A, Maes P, Amores J. From gaze to guidance: Interpreting and adapting to users’ cognitive needs with multimodal gaze-aware AI assistants. arXiv:2604.08062. 2026.

[7] Kather P, Duran R, Vahrenhold J. Through (tracking) their eyes: Abstraction and complexity in program comprehension. ACM Trans Comput Educ. 2022;22(2):17.

[8] Skaramagkas V, et al. Review of eye tracking metrics involved in emotional and cognitive processes. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2023;16:260–277.

[9] Tarnowski P, Kołodziej M, Majkowski A, Rak RJ. Eye-tracking analysis for emotion recognition. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2020;2020:2909267.

[10] Yang Q, Liu Y, Chen T, Tong Y. Federated machine learning: Concept and applications. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol. 2019;10(2):12.

[11] Grafsgaard JF, Wiggins JB, Boyer KE, Wiebe EN, Lester JC. Automatically recognizing facial expression: Predicting engagement and frustration. In: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Educational Data Mining (EDM); 2013. p. 43–50.

[12] Epp C, Lippold M, Mandryk RL. Identifying emotional states using keystroke dynamics. In: Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI); 2011. p. 715–724.

[13] Cockell R, Halak B. On the design and analysis of a biometric authentication system using keystroke dynamics. arXiv:1909.10841. 2019.

[14] Lee PM, Tsui WH, Hsiao TC. The influence of emotion on keyboard typing: An experimental study using auditory stimuli. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6):e0129056.

[15] Sim KYH, Fortuno KT, Choo KTW. Towards understanding emotions for engaged mental health conversations. arXiv:2406.11135. 2024.

[16] Gubanyi M, Soh LK. Evaluating programming assignments and compile-and-run prompts in CS1 by observing student programming behaviors. In: Proc. 21st ACM Conf. Int. Computing Education Research (ICER); 2025. p. 210–226.

[17] Stragapede G, et al. IEEE BigData 2023 keystroke verification challenge (KVC). In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Big Data; 2023.

[18] Chi X, Guo X, Sheng Y. Methods for cognitive diagnosis of students’ abilities based on keystroke features. Applied Sciences. 2025;15(9):4783.

[19] Suryani M, Santoso HB, Fathoni Aji R, Hadi S, Schrepp M. User interaction behavior analysis for cognitive load detection in online learning processes.

[20] Sae-Bae N, Memon N. Distinguishability of keystroke dynamic template. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(1):e0261291.

@article{1724380,
      author = {Swathi D A, Suneeta, Varsha Annappa Madival, Prof. Mohan K},
      title = {A Survey on Emotion-Aware Programming Assistance Using Large Language Models, Eye-Gaze Analysis and Keystroke Dynamics},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {4},
      pages = {3941-3952},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1724380.pdf},
      abstract = {Large language models (LLMs) are entering programming education quickly, where they are used to produce hints, feedback, exercises, and code explanations. Most of these tools respond only to the code or error message in front of them and remain unaware of whether the learner is confused, frustrated, bored, or overloaded. This survey reviews twenty studies that bear on this problem, covering LLM-based programming assistance, eye tracking and gaze-aware assistants, facial-expression recognition of engagement and frustration, keystroke dynamics, and behavioral indicators of cognitive load. The literature shows that LLM feedback is generally well received and becomes more useful when it is tied to the student’s own code, that gaze reflects attention and comprehension effort, and that typing rhythm changes with emotional state and can be captured without a camera. However, most studies examine a single signal, rely on controlled or non-programming tasks, depend on self-reports, or target authentication rather than learning. From this synthesis we identify a gap: we found very little work that links learner-state sensing to LLM feedback in programming, and none that tests whether doing so improves learning. We outline a conceptual emotion-aware programming tutor as a research direction, kept separate from the reviewed evidence, and discuss privacy, bias, and evaluation challenges.},
      keywords = {adaptive feedback; cognitive load; emotion-aware tutoring; eye tracking; keystroke dynamics; large language models; programming education},
      month = {October},
  }