Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3593434.3593452acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseaseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Measuring User Experience of Adaptive User Interfaces using EEG: A Replication Study

Published: 14 June 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Background: Adaptive user interfaces have the advantage of being able to dynamically change their aspect and/or behaviour depending on the characteristics of the context of use, i.e. to improve user experience. User experience is an important quality factor that has been primarily evaluated with classical measures (e.g. effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction), but to a lesser extent with physiological measures, such as emotion recognition, skin response, or brain activity. Aim: In a previous exploratory experiment involving users with different profiles and a wide range of ages, we analysed user experience in terms of cognitive load, engagement, attraction and memorisation when employing twenty graphical adaptive menus through the use of an Electroencephalogram (EEG) device. The results indicated that there were statistically significant differences for these four variables. However, we considered that it was necessary to confirm or reject these findings using a more homogeneous group of users. Method: We conducted an operational internal replication study with 40 participants. We also investigated the potential correlation between EEG signals and the participants’ user experience ratings, such as their preferences. Results: The results of this experiment confirm that there are statistically significant differences between the EEG variables when the participants interact with the different adaptive menus. Moreover, there is a high correlation among the participants’ user experience ratings and the EEG signals, and a trend regarding performance has emerged from our analysis. Conclusions: These findings suggest that EEG signals could be used to evaluate user experience. With regard to the menus studied, our results suggest that graphical menus with different structures and font types produce more differences in users’ brain responses, while menus which use colours produce more similarities in users’ brain responses. Several insights with which to improve users’ experience of graphical adaptive menus are outlined.

References

[1]
John J.B. Allen, James Arthur Coan, and Maria Nazarian. 2004. Issues and assumptions on the road from raw signals to metrics of frontal EEG asymmetry in emotion. Biological Psychology 67, 1 (2004), 183–218.
[2]
Pavlo Antonenko, Fred Paas, Roland Grabner, and Tamara Van Gog. 2010. Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational psychology review 22, 4 (2010), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9130-y
[3]
Ainhoa Apraiz Iriarte, Ganix Lasa, and Maitane Mazmela. 2021. Evaluating User Experience with physiological monitoring: A Systematic Literature Review. Dyna (Bilbao) 8, 21. https://doi.org/10.6036/NT10072
[4]
Jennifer Romano Bergstrom, Sabrina Duda, David Hawkins, and Mike McGill. 2014. Physiological response measurements. In Eye tracking in user experience design. Elsevier, 81–108.
[5]
Jacques Bertin. 1967. Sémiologie graphique, Paris, Mouton/Gauthier-Villard. Réédition (2005) EHESS (1967).
[6]
Bitbrain. 2020. SennsMetrics: Analysis Software of Biometrics. https://www.bitbrain.com/neurotechnology-products/software/sennsmetrics. accessed: 2020-04.
[7]
N. Cliff. 1993. Dominance statistics: ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin 144 (1993), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494
[8]
Electrode Position Nomenclature Committee. 1994. Guideline thirteen: guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 11, 111–113.
[9]
Sarah Fakhoury, Yuzhan Ma, Venera Arnaoudova, and Olusola Adesope. 2018. The effect of poor source code lexicon and readability on developers’ cognitive load. In Proc. Int. Conf. Program Comprehension (ICPC). IEEE, 286–28610.
[10]
Robert Feldt, Richard Torkar, Lefteris Angelis, and Maria Samuelsson. 2008. Towards individualized software engineering: empirical studies should collect psychometrics. In Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Cooperative and human aspects of software engineering. 49–52.
[11]
Leah Findlater and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2009. Design space and evaluation challenges of adaptive graphical user interfaces. AI Magazine 30, 4 (2009), 68–68.
[12]
International Organization for Standardization. 2010. Ergonomics of Human-system Interaction: Part 210: Human-centred Design for Interactive Systems. ISO.
[13]
Krzysztof Z Gajos, Mary Czerwinski, Desney S Tan, and Daniel S Weld. 2006. Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user interfaces. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces. 201–208.
[14]
Daniel Gaspar-Figueiredo, Jean Vanderdonckt, Silvia Abrahão, and Emilio Insfran. 2023. User Experience with Adaptive User Interfaces: Comparing User Performance and Preferences. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (submitted on April 2023).
[15]
Omar S. Gómez, Natalia Juristo, and Sira Vegas. 2014. Understanding replication of experiments in software engineering: A classification. Information and Software Technology 56, 8, 1033–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.04.004
[16]
Eddie Harmon-Jones, Philip A. Gable, and Carly K. Peterson. 2010. The role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in emotion-related phenomena: A review and update. Biological Psychology 84, 3 (2010), 451–462.
[17]
Xiyuan Hou, Fitri Trapsilawati, Yisi Liu, Olga Sourina, Chun-Hsien Chen, Wolfgang Mueller-Wittig, and Wei Tech Ang. 2017. EEG-based human factors evaluation of conflict resolution aid and tactile user interface in future air traffic control systems. In Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation. Springer, 885–897.
[18]
Maxwell K.D.2002. Applied Statistics for Software Managers. Applied Statistics for Software Managers (2002).
[19]
Barbara Kitchenham, Lech Madeyski, David Budgen, Jacky Keung, Pearl Brereton, Stuart Charters, Shirley Gibbs, and Amnart Pohthong. 2017. Robust statistical methods for empirical software engineering. Empir. Software Eng. 22, 2, 579–630.
[20]
Wolfgang Klimesch. 1999. EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis. Brain Research Reviews 29, 2 (1999), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00056-3
[21]
Sari Kujala, Virpi Roto, Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, Evangelos Karapanos, and Arto Sinnelä. 2011. UX Curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interacting with computers 23, 5 (2011), 473–483.
[22]
Haeinn Lee, Jungtae Lee, and Ssanghee Seo. 2009. Brain Response to Good and Bad Design. In Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends, Julie A. Jacko (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 111–120.
[23]
Nicole M. Long, John F. Burke, and Michael J. Kahana. 2014. Subsequent memory effect in intracranial and scalp EEG. NeuroImage 84 (2014), 488–494.
[24]
Peter J. Mikulka, Mark W. Scerbo, and Frederick G. Freeman. 2002. Effects of a Biocybernetic System on Vigilance Performance. Human Factors 44, 4, 654–664.
[25]
Jefferson Seide Molléri, Indira Nurdiani, Farnaz Fotrousi, and Kai Petersen. 2019. Experiences of studying Attention through EEG in the Context of Review Tasks. In Proceedings of the Evaluation and Assessment on Software Engineering. 313–318.
[26]
Meinard Müller. 2007. Dynamic Time Warping. In Information Retrieval for Music and Motion. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 69–84.
[27]
Jakob Nielsen and Jonathan Levy. 1994. Measuring Usability: Preference vs. Performance. Commun. ACM 37, 4 (apr 1994), 66–75.
[28]
Norman Peitek, Janet Siegmund, Chris Parnin, Sven Apel, Johannes C. Hofmeister, and André Brechmann. 2018. Simultaneous Measurement of Program Comprehension with FMRI and Eye Tracking: A Case Study. In Proc. Int. Symp.Empirical Softw. Eng. Meas.Association for Computing Machinery, Article 24.
[29]
Peter Schmutz, Silvia Heinz, Yolanda Métrailler, and Klaus Opwis. 2009. Cognitive load in eCommerce applications—measurement and effects on user satisfaction. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction (2009).
[30]
Janet Siegmund, Christian Kästner, Sven Apel, Chris Parnin, Anja Bethmann, Thomas Leich, Gunter Saake, and André Brechmann. 2014. Understanding understanding source code with functional magnetic resonance imaging. In Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering. 378–389.
[31]
Alexandre N. Tuch, Paul Van Schaik, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. Leisure and Work, Good and Bad: The Role of Activity Domain and Valence in Modeling User Experience. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 23, 6, Article 35 (dec 2016).
[32]
Jean Vanderdonckt, Sara Bouzit, Gaëlle Calvary, and Denis Chêne. 2019. Exploring a design space of graphical adaptive menus: normal vs. small screens. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 10, 1 (2019), 1–40.
[33]
Barbara Weber, Thomas Fischer, and René Riedl. 2021. Brain and autonomic nervous system activity measurement in software engineering: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software 178 (2021), 110946.
[34]
Tarannum Zaki and Muhammad Nazrul Islam. 2021. Neurological and physiological measures to evaluate the usability and user-experience (UX) of information systems: A systematic literature review. Computer Science Review 40, 100–375.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)MEDYA ETKİLERİNE YÖNELİK METODOLOJİK BİR TARTIŞMA: KONVANSİYONEL YÖNTEMLER VE EEGMoment Journal10.17572/mj2024.1.109-13111:1(109-131)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
  • (2024)User-controlled Form Adaptation by Unsupervised LearningAdjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3677045.3685431(1-8)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
  • (2024)MARLUI: Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Point-and-Click UIsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36611478:EICS(1-27)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
EASE '23: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
June 2023
544 pages
ISBN:9798400700446
DOI:10.1145/3593434
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 14 June 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Adaptive Systems
  2. EEG
  3. Experiment
  4. UX
  5. User Interfaces

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

EASE '23

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 71 of 232 submissions, 31%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)180
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14
Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)MEDYA ETKİLERİNE YÖNELİK METODOLOJİK BİR TARTIŞMA: KONVANSİYONEL YÖNTEMLER VE EEGMoment Journal10.17572/mj2024.1.109-13111:1(109-131)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
  • (2024)User-controlled Form Adaptation by Unsupervised LearningAdjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3677045.3685431(1-8)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
  • (2024)MARLUI: Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Point-and-Click UIsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36611478:EICS(1-27)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Development of Design Patterns with Adaptive User Interface for Cloud Native Microservice Architecture Using Deep Learning With IoT2024 IEEE International Conference on Computing, Power and Communication Technologies (IC2PCT)10.1109/IC2PCT60090.2024.10486720(1866-1871)Online publication date: 9-Feb-2024

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media