Physiological and Semantic Patterns in Medical Teams Using an Intelligent Tutoring System

Xiaoshan Huang, Conrad Borchers, Jiayi Zhang, Susanne P. Lajoie · Mar 31, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Effective collaboration requires teams to manage complex cognitive and emotional states through Socially Shared Regulation of Learning (SSRL). Physiological synchrony (i.e., longitudinal alignment in physiological signals) can indicate these states, but is hard to interpret on its own. We investigate the physiological and conversational dynamics of four medical dyads diagnosing a virtual patient case using an intelligent tutoring system. Semantic shifts in dialogue were correlated with transient physiological synchrony peaks. We also coded utterance segments for SSRL and derived cosine similarity using sentence embeddings. The results showed that activating prior knowledge featured significantly lower semantic similarity than simpler task execution. High physiological synchrony was associated with lower semantic similarity, suggesting that such moments involve exploratory and varied language use. Qualitative analysis triangulated these synchrony peaks as ``pivotal moments'': successful teams synchronized during shared discovery, while unsuccessful teams peaked during shared uncertainty. This research advances human-centered AI by demonstrating how biological signals can be fused with dialogues to understand critical moments in problem solving.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.