| Literature DB >> 35528346 |
Xiang Chen1, Zhiwei Chen2, Lei Xiao1, Ming Zhou1.
Abstract
With the development of virtual reality and digital reconstruction technology, digital museums have been widely promoted in various cities. Digital museums offer new ways to display and disseminate cultural heritage. It allows remote users to autonomously browse displays in a physical museum environment in a digital space. It is also possible to reproduce the lost heritage through digital reconstruction and restoration, so as to digitally present tangible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage to the public. However, the user's experience of using digital museums has not been fully and deeply studied at present. In this study, the user's experience evaluation data of digital museum are classified and processed, so as to analyze the user's emotional trend towards the museum. Considering that the user's evaluation data are unbalanced data, this study uses an unbalanced support vector machine (USVM) in the classification of user evaluation data. The main idea of this method is that the boundary of the support vector is continuously shifted to the majority class by repeatedly oversampling some support vectors until the real support vector samples are found. The experimental results show that the classification obtained by the used USVM has a good practical reference value. Based on the classification results of the evaluation data, the construction of the digital museum can be further guided and maintained, thereby improving the user experience satisfaction of the museum. This research will make an important contribution to the construction of the museum and the inheritance of culture.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35528346 PMCID: PMC9071915 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2096634
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1USVM algorithm flow chart.
Experimental dataset.
| Dataset | Positive | Neutral | Negative | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Train | Test | Train | Test | Train | Test | |
| Restaurant | 2164 | 728 | 637 | 196 | 807 | 196 |
| Laptop | 994 | 341 | 464 | 169 | 870 | 128 |
Experimental results on the Restaurant dataset.
| Model | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 0.7745 | 0.8215 | 0.8477 | 0.8344 |
| KNN | 0.8098 | 0.8531 | 0.8129 | 0.8325 |
| LR | 0.8956 | 0.8606 | 0.8533 | 0.8569 |
| DT | 0.8258 | 0.8366 | 0.8050 | 0.8205 |
| USVM | 0.8757 | 0.8664 | 0.8566 | 0.8615 |
Figure 2Comparison of classification results on the Restaurant dataset.
Experimental results on Laptop.
| Model | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 0.6716 | 0.7521 | 0.6988 | 0.7245 |
| KNN | 0.7342 | 0.7652 | 0.8012 | 0.7828 |
| LR | 0.7365 | 0.7788 | 0.7569 | 0.7677 |
| DT | 0.7869 | 0.7952 | 0.7763 | 0.7856 |
| USVM | 0.8038 | 0.8335 | 0.8532 | 0.8432 |
Figure 3Comparison of classification results on the Laptop dataset.
Figure 4Sentiment analysis process.
Questionnaire survey evaluation indicators.
| First indicator | Secondary indicators | First indicator | Secondary indicators |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of visual | Color matching | Evaluation of interactivity | Ease of use |
| Typesetting | Clear feedback | ||
| Illustration design | Interactive entertainment | ||
| Navigation design | Freedom of operation | ||
| Page layout | Interactive visual consistency | ||
| Button shape | Simple and clear operation | ||
|
| |||
| Evaluation of the function | Display function | Evaluation of information content | Accuracy |
| Comment function | Content validity | ||
| Interactive function | Amount of information | ||
| Research function | Emotional support | ||
| Entertainment function | Relevance | ||
| Education function | Value | ||
| Collection function | |||
Example of sentiment classification rule words.
| Sentiment classification | Typical vocabulary examples |
|---|---|
| Satisfied | Very good, very satisfied, very satisfied, not bad, ok, very beautiful, very realistic, and magnificent |
| Neutral | a little, barely, not very, average, and mediocre |
| Dissatisfied | Not smooth, disappointed, dissatisfied, disliked, not flashy enough, inconvenient, lacking, inconsistent, and uninteresting |
Examples of manual marking.
| Sentiment classification | Label | Text example |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfied | 1 | 1. Wow, I really like it, it feels like being there. |
| Neutral | 0 | 1. Okay, at least you can visit the museums without going out. |
| Dissatisfied | −1 | 1. Lack of interesting and vivid explanations, it is boring. |
Sentiment classification results of museum user experience evaluation.
| Data set | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training set | 0.8973 | 0.8645 | 0.8965 | 0.8802 |
| Test set | 0.8606 | 0.8176 | 0.8256 | 0.8216 |
Examples of interactive comment feature words.
| Index | Feature word example |
|---|---|
| Ease of use | Convenient, troublesome, simple, difficult to use, and easy to use |
| Clear feedback | Clear, clear, blurry, too dark, and too bright |
| Interactive entertainment | Funny, funny, interesting, cute, boring, boring, and so funny |
| Freedom of operation | Smooth, not stuck at all, not stuck, very smooth, a little stuck, and not moving |
| Interactive visual consistency | Rich, wonderful, classic, novel, and good looking |
| Simple and clear operation | Simple, fast, and clear at a glance |
Analysis results of the correlation between positive reviews and satisfaction.
| Rules | Lift | Support | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| {Easy to use}⟶{satisfied} | 6.5323 | 0.0112 | 0.7895 |
| {convenient}⟶{easy to use} | 5.2546 | 0.0108 | 0.6542 |
| {Good ease of use}⟶{satisfied} | 7.6440 | 0.0132 | 0.6029 |
| {Clear}⟶{very good} | 3.3865 | 0.0228 | 0.5321 |
| {Clear feedback}⟶{good feedback} | 4.5123 | 0.0420 | 0.4652 |
| {Good feedback}⟶{satisfied} | 1.9758 | 0.0136 | 0.5352 |
| {interesting}⟶{good entertainment} | 3.7549 | 0.0349 | 0.4434 |
| {fun}⟶{good entertainment} | 3.1718 | 0.0256 | 0.3848 |
| {Good entertainment}⟶{satisfied} | 2.2938 | 0.0243 | 0.4658 |
| {fluency}⟶{good} | 1.6284 | 0.0466 | 0.4126 |
| {Not stuck}⟶{good operability} | 2.0236 | 0.0501 | 0.3102 |
| {wonderful}⟶{good visuality} | 5.7431 | 0.0332 | 0.2728 |
| {novel}⟶{satisfaction} | 4.8313 | 0.0284 | 0.3006 |
| {Good visuality}⟶{satisfaction} | 5.7652 | 0.0119 | 0.5875 |
| {easy}⟶{good} | 1.3526 | 0.0132 | 0.7643 |
| {Clear at a glance}⟶{easy to operate} | 3.5435 | 0.0157 | 0.5456 |
| {Easy to operate}⟶{satisfied} | 6.0348 | 0.0265 | 0.4659 |
Figure 5Top 10 word frequency statistics of positive comment text.
Figure 6Top 10 word frequency statistics of negative comment text.
Analysis results of the correlation between negative reviews and satisfaction.
| Rules | Lift | Support | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| {Not easy to use}⟶{too bad} | 3.7821 | 0.0869 | 0.5228 |
| {inconvenient}⟶{dissatisfied} | 5.4655 | 0.0466 | 0.4225 |
| {cumbersome}⟶{Poor operability} | 2.8632 | 0.0298 | 0.4048 |
| {Poor picture}⟶{uninteresting} | 1.9874 | 0.0373 | 0.4866 |
| {monotonous}⟶{dislike} | 4.3245 | 0.0198 | 0.3738 |
| {stuck}⟶{dissatisfied} | 2.4315 | 0.0731 | 0.3994 |
| {Will not use again}⟶{dissatisfied} | 5.2832 | 0.0698 | 0.4687 |
| {Slow feedback}⟶{poor interaction} | 2.0437 | 0.0385 | 0.5961 |
| {disappointed}⟶{dissatisfied} | 4.7633 | 0.0279 | 0.7325 |
| {boring}⟶{dissatisfied} | 3.7656 | 0.0817 | 0.7193 |
| {missing}⟶{dislike} | 1.7855 | 0.0693 | 0.5532 |