Biosensor assisted measurement of cognitive participation in English reading: A psychological perspective
Abstract
Cognitive involvement in English reading is important for understanding and engagement. Traditional techniques of measuring cognitive participation frequently rely on individual evaluations that do not capture real-time physiological reactions. Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and biosensor technology provide intriguing options to close this gap by offering a goal, real-time data. This work seeks to improve the evaluation of cognitive participation in reading in English by combining biosensor data analysis with modern AI algorithms. Participants completed English reading activities, and their electroencephalogram (EEG) and Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) signals were recorded. A median filter was used as a pre-processing to reduce noise. Discrete wavelet transform (DWT) was utilized to extract features to extract specific patterns from the biosensor signals. The new Dynamic White Shark Infused Residual Neural Network (DWS-IResNet) approach was used to model and forecast the level of cognitive participation. The proposed method is implemented using the Python platform. The algorithm used was trained and evaluated based on performance indicators such as accuracy. Using the features of simple, technical, analytical, and emotional, the proposed DWS-IResNet approach is compared with metrics between males and females. In simple features, the accuracy was 90% higher for females; in emotional features, the precision was 90% better for females; and in males and females, the percentage of emotion features was greater at 90% of recall and 90% of F1-score. The suggested technique demonstrates the efficacy of the AI-enhanced biosensor method for assessing cognitive engagement. This study demonstrates the possibility of AI-powered biosensor readings for real-time, accurate evaluation of cognitive involvement during reading.
References
1. Zhang X, and Chen L. College English smart classroom teaching model based on artificial intelligence technology in mobile information systems. Mobile Information Systems. 2021; 2021(1), p.5644604. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5644604
2. Yu Z, Yu L, Xu Q, Xu W, and Wu P. Effects of mobile learning technologies and social media tools on student engagement and learning outcomes of English learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 2022; 31(3), pp.381–398.https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2045215
3. Khajavy GH. Modeling the relations between foreign language engagement, emotions, grit, and reading achievement. Student engagement in the language classroom. 2021; pp.241–259. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923613-016
4. Kim DH, Wang C, and Truong TNN. Psychometric properties of a self-efficacy scale for English language learners in Vietnam. Language Teaching Research. 2024; 28(4), pp.1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211027852
5. Ginting D. Student engagement and factors affecting active learning in English language teaching. Voices of English Language Education Society. 2021; 5(2), pp.215–228.https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2637439
6. Teo T, Khazaie S, and Derakhshan A. Exploring teacher immediacy-(non) dependency in the tutored augmented reality game-assisted flipped classrooms of English for medical purposes comprehension among the Asian students. Computers & Education. 2022; 179, p.104406.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104406
7. Xu Y, Wang D, Collins P, Lee H, and Warschauer M. Same benefits, different communication patterns: Comparing Children’s reading with a conversational agent vs. a human partner. Computers & Education. 2021; 161, p.104059.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104059
8. Teng F. The benefits of metacognitive reading strategy awareness instruction for young learners of English as a second language. Literacy. 2020; 54(1), pp.29–39.https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12181
9. Dewaele JM, and Li C. Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: Associations with general and domain-specific English achievement. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2022; 45(1), pp.32–48.https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0104
10. Soyoof A, Reynolds BL, Vazquez-Calvo B, and McLay K. Informal digital learning of English (IDLE): A scoping review of what has been done and a look towards what is to come. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2023; 36(4), pp.608–640.https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936562
11. Zai X. Leveraging Bio-Sensing Technology and IoT for Optimizing Spanish Vocabulary Instruction Across Chinese and Western Cultures: A Biotechnological Approach. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology. 2024; 29(3), pp.305–314. https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb1822
12. Hernández-Mustieles MA, Lima-Carmona YE, Pacheco-Ramírez MA, Mendoza-Armenta AA, Romero-Gómez JE, Cruz-Gómez CF, Rodríguez-Alvarado DC, Arceo A, Cruz-Garza JG, Ramírez-Moreno MA, and Lozoya-Santos JDJ. Wearable Biosensor Technology in Education: A Systematic Review. Sensors. 2024; 24(8), p.2437. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24082437
13. Lee H. Supporting instructors to provide emotional and instructional scaffolding for English language learners through biosensor-based feedback. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (pp. 733–737), 2020. October. https://doi.org/10.1145/3382507.3421159
14. McNeal KS, Zhong M, Soltis NA, Doukopoulos L, Johnson ET, Courtney S, Alwan A, and Porch M. Biosensors show promise as a measure of student engagement in a large introductory biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2020; 19(4), p.ar50. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-08-0158
15. Arya SS, Dias SB, Jelinek HF, Hadjileontiadis LJ, and Pappa AM. The convergence of traditional and digital biomarkers through AI-assisted biosensing: A new era in translational diagnostics? Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2023; 235, p.115387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2023.115387
16. Campuzano S, Yáñez-Sedeño P, and Pingarrón JM. Revisiting electrochemical biosensing in the 21st-century society for inflammatory cytokines involved in autoimmune, neurodegenerative, cardiac, viral, and cancer diseases. Sensors. 2020; 21(1), p.189. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21010189
17. Blasi DE, Henrich J, Adamou E, Kemmerer D, and Majid A. Over-reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2022; 26(12), pp.1153–1170.
18. Anggarista S, and Wahyudin AY. A correlational study of language learning strategies and English proficiency of university students in EFL context. Journal of Arts and Education. 2022; 1(2).https://doi.org/10.33365/jae.v2i1.68
19. Landerl K, Castles A, and Parrila R. Cognitive precursors of reading: A cross-linguistic perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2022; 26(2), pp.111–124.https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1983820
20. Kakhramonovich AA. Cognitive And Linguocultural Features of The English Wedding Ceremony. Zien Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 2021; 3, pp.49–54.
21. Physiological Responses During English Reading Tasks. Available online: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ziya07/reading-task-data/data (accessed on 20 September 2024)
Copyright (c) 2024 Yang Li, Yajie Chen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright on all articles published in this journal is retained by the author(s), while the author(s) grant the publisher as the original publisher to publish the article.
Articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which means they can be shared, adapted and distributed provided that the original published version is cited.
Submit a Paper
