âĽđ 7737669865 đâť dehradun Call-girls in Women Seeking Men đdehradunđ Escor...
Â
Psychophysiology and Eyetracking in User Experience
1. Psychophysiology and Eye Tracking
NEW AND OLD TECHNOLOGIES THAT COMPLEMENT
USABILITY RESEARCH
Prepared by:
Daniel Berlin â Experience Research Director
November 6, 2012
Webinar
2. @MadPow
Todayâs Webinar
â˘âŻHistory of Eye Tracking and Psychophysiology
â˘âŻTraditional and modern Eye Tracking metrics and methodologies
â˘âŻ Eye Tracking as data for HCI optimization, not as an input device
â˘âŻAvailable eye tracking equipment
â˘âŻThe need to evolve neuromarketing
â˘âŻPsychophysiology in user experience
2
3. @MadPow
Hi! Iâm Dan Berlin
â˘âŻBA in psychology from Brandeis University
â˘âŻ Studies focused on visual space perception
â˘âŻSeven years in technical support
â˘âŻ Sat as a participant for a usability study for a product I was working on
â˘âŻ Realized that user experience (UX) work is the perfect combination of computers and psychology
â˘âŻWent to Bentley U. to earn an MBA and MS in Human Factors in Information Design
â˘âŻ Two year full time program
â˘âŻTwo years at an interactive agency performing usability and neuromarketing
research
â˘âŻ Then did some freelance UX consulting for about a year
â˘âŻAlmost two years as an Experience Research Director in Mad*Powâs Boston office
3
4. @MadPow
What Will NOT Be Covered In This Webinar
â˘âŻThe validity of current eye tracking metrics and methodologies
â˘âŻWhat Eye Tracking and Psychophysiology has already taught us about
human behavior
â˘âŻPsychophysiological traces other than skin conductance: heart rate
variability, heart rate, breathing rate, neurological signals, and skin
temperature
4
5. @MadPow
Why This is an Important Topic
â˘âŻUX researchers are always looking to collect objective data
â˘âŻ Quantitative measures complement our typically qualitative methods
â˘âŻEye tracking metrics provide objective data based on participant behavior
â˘âŻ But current methods are only the beginning
â˘âŻPairing eye tracking with psychophysiology is the next logical step
â˘âŻ New technology is bridging the gap to âdiscountâ usability testing
5
7. @MadPow
What is Eye Tracking?
â˘âŻObserving and recording eye movements as a study participant traverses
a website or application
â˘âŻ Allows us to gain deeper insight into how users perform usability tasks
â˘âŻAllows UX researchers to collect objective behavioral data
â˘âŻTerminology
â˘âŻ Fixation â when a user stops to look at something for more than 10ms
â˘âŻ Saccade â the path between fixations
â˘âŻ Scanpath â a set of fixations and saccades that indicate a trajectory
Tobii 1750
â˘âŻâModernâ eye tracking began with Goldberg & Kotval (1999)
â˘âŻ Developed eye tracking metrics for on-screen tasks
â˘âŻDoesnât include observing pupil dilation, blink-rate, or facial recognition
7
8. @MadPow
Yesterday
History of Eye Tracking
â˘âŻHas roots in reading research and is
over 100 years old:
â˘âŻ Electrodes placed around the eye
â˘âŻ Various types of contact lenses
â˘âŻ Cameras mounted in plane cockpits
â˘âŻ Big, heavy helmets
â˘âŻBecame more âmainstreamâ in the
1950s with FAA studies done on pilots
for cockpit design Today
â˘âŻModern Eye Tracking equipment is
much less invasive
â˘âŻ They typically bounce infrared light off the
retina to determine eye position
8
9. @MadPow
Typical Eye Tracking Data Visualizations
Heat Map Gaze Plot
â˘âŻ# of fixations for all participants â˘âŻOrder of fixations for one participant
9
10. @MadPow
Areas of Interest
Basic Eye Tracking Methodology
â˘âŻBreak the page up into separate âareas
of interestâ or AOIs
â˘âŻCompare the fixation data between
important areas and less important
ones
â˘âŻ Or compare data between designs
â˘âŻYou will always need things to compare
â˘âŻ Eye tracking data does not tell much of a
story without a comparison
â˘âŻ There are no absolute standards for eye
tracking metrics â human behavior differs!
10
11. @MadPow
Areas of Interest
Basic Eye Tracking Interpretation
â˘âŻNumber of fixations
â˘âŻ Are users finding the call to action or
having a hard time finding the secondary
navigation?
â˘âŻ Are users reading the content?
â˘âŻFixation duration
â˘âŻ Are users spending an inordinate amount
of time looking at a single link?
â˘âŻ Are they particularly engaged with one of
the design/content elements?
11
12. @MadPow
Eye Tracking Metrics
Average%#%of%Fixa/ons%
*
16# 15# 15#
14#
12# 10#
#%of%ďŹxa/ons%
10# 8#
8#
5# 5# Design#1#
6# 4#
4# Design#2#
2#
2#
0#
Area%1% Area%2% Area%3% Area%4%
Area%of%Interest%
â˘âŻDesign 1 drew more attention to area 1, while design 2
drew attention to area 2
*this data is oversimplified and completely made-up 12
13. @MadPow
Eye Tracking Methodology
â˘âŻBojko (2006) shows how a combination of eye tracking and click data can
highlight differences in search behavior
â˘âŻ Increased time on task for the âoldâ website was caused by an increased number of fixations
before an on-target click
â˘âŻ Scanpaths showed that targets were more noticeable in the ânewâ design (clicked upon 1st
fixation)
â˘âŻSome have looked into correlating eye-movement patterns with usability
problems (Ehmke & Wilson, 2007)
â˘âŻ Multiple, quick fixations may indicate missing information
â˘âŻ Promising patterns, but nothing concrete â more research is needed
â˘âŻJourney mapping with head-mounted eye tracker (Alves, et al, 2012)
â˘âŻ âReal-worldâ tasks and scenarios
13
14. @MadPow
Eye Tracking Metrics (Fixations)
â˘âŻPoole & Ball (2010) provide a great summary of Eye Tracking metrics, re-
summarized here:
Description What it Measures
Overall # of fixations Increased overall fixations indicate less efficient search
Fixations per AOI Increased fixations indicate increase noticeability or importance
Fixations per AOI, adjusted for text For text-based AOIs, divide by the number of words
length
Overall fixation duration Increased fixation duration indicates confusion or engagement
Gaze, dwell, or (Sum of fixation durations within an AOI)
fixation cluster/cycle Compare attention between AOIs and used to measure anticipation
Fixation spatial density Small fixation area indicates efficient searching
Repeat fixations or post-target Increased off-target fixations after initial target fixation indicates low
fixations meaningfulness or visibility
Time to first fixation on-target Faster time to first fixation on-target indicates increased noticeability
Percentage of participants fixating an Higher percentages indicate increased noticeability
area of interest
On-target (all target fixations) (On-target fixations / Total # of fixations)
Lower ratio indicates lower search efficiency 14
15. @MadPow
Eye Tracking Metrics (Saccades and Scanpaths)
â˘âŻPoole & Ball (2010) provide a great summary of Eye Tracking metrics, re-
summarized here:
Description What it Measures
Overall # of saccades Increased saccades indicate more searching
Saccade amplitude Larger saccades indicate meaningful cues â attention is drawn from
a distance
Regressive saccades Indicate less meaningful cues
Saccades greater than 90 degrees may indicate a change in user
Marked directional shifts goals or a breaking of user expectations
Scanpath duration Increased time indicates more searching
Scanpath length Increased length indicates more searching
Spatial density Smaller density indicates directed searching
Fixation/saccade ratio Higher ratio indicates less searching (more processing)
15
16. @MadPow
Using Eye Tracking in a Usability Study
â˘âŻUse a within-subjects study design â people have different viewing
patterns and you want the stimuli data to be comparable
â˘âŻ Within-subjects = all of the participants see all the stimuli
â˘âŻExpose participants to the stimuli in the course of performing a task
â˘âŻ Keeps the data relevant and contextual
â˘âŻ People rarely view static pages
â˘âŻConsider your use of the think-aloud protocol â may be distracting for the
participant
â˘âŻ Some research has been done into âRetrospective Think-Aloudâ (RTA)
â˘âŻ After the session or task, participants watch their eye movements and discuss their thought process
â˘âŻStudies that make use of Eye Tracking have special recruiting needs
â˘âŻ Over-recruit â you wonât be able to use the data from every participant
â˘âŻ Screen-out respondents with cornea or retina damage/disease
16
17. @MadPow
Eye Tracking Equipment
â˘âŻTobii and SMI are the major
players
â˘âŻBoth offer:
â˘âŻ Remote (monitor based)
â˘âŻ Head-mounted (glasses)
Tobii T60/120 SMI RED
â˘âŻ Flexible (use your own monitor/laptop)
â˘âŻThere are other, cheaper options
â˘âŻ But you get what you pay for
Tobii Glasses SMI Glasses 17
18. @MadPow
Going Beyond Eye Tracking Metrics
â˘âŻEye tracking metrics are just the tip of the iceberg
â˘âŻWe need to take a step back and remember what eye tracking does best:
It tells us where participants are looking at any given time
â˘âŻSo what other temporal, objective data can we use in conjunction with eye
tracking?
18
20. @MadPow
What is Psychophysiology?
â˘âŻIn the late 1800s, it was discovered that Electro Dermal Activity (EDA) will
change based on a personâs feelings (Vigouroux, 1888)
â˘âŻ That is, the skinâs electrical conductance (or resistance) changes with positive or negative
arousal
â˘âŻ This allows us to observe a personâs psychological reaction without asking any questions
â˘âŻGalvanic skin response (GSR) is the typical metric used to measure EDA
â˘âŻ GSR measures the electrical conductivity of the skin
â˘âŻ Sweat glands are controlled by the sympathetic system and you sweat when aroused
â˘âŻ More sweat = more skin conductivity
â˘âŻPsychophysiology is the process of analyzing physiological metrics to
determine a personâs psychological state
â˘âŻ No, we canât read peopleâs minds, but we can get further objective insight into their behaviors
20
21. @MadPow
What is Psychophysiology?
â˘âŻOther physiological traces can tell us what is happening in the mind, but are beyond
the scope of todayâs webinar (Dirican & GĂśktĂźrk, 2011):
Trace Use
Event Related Brain Potentials (ERP) Mental workload
Electroencephalography (EEG) Task engagement and cognitive processes
Heart Rate (HR) & Heart Rate Arousal, mental workload, and valence
Variability (HRV)
Blood Pressure (BP) Stress
Electromyogram (EMG) Motor preparation and emotional valence
Respiration Task demands and arousal
21
22. @MadPow
Wait, isnât that Neuromarketing?
â˘âŻNeuromarketing is a newer field whereby companies (typically) use EEG/
EMG data in marketing studies
fMRI EEG/EMG
Blood
Brain waves
oxygenation
22
23. @MadPow
But neuromarketing is NOT helping the UX community
â˘âŻâDiscountâ usability testing dictates that we should be able to run
12-16 participants in 3-4 days
â˘âŻfMRI is expensive
â˘âŻEEG is time consuming and commodity equipment is unreliable
â˘âŻ Emotiv headset has potential, but is not ready for our world quite yet
â˘âŻNeuromarketing companies rely on their âspecial sauceâ
algorithm, which is not shared with the research community
â˘âŻ Yes, businesses have the right to make money from intellectual
property
â˘âŻ But this inhibits bringing the technology to other fields that could benefit
23
24. @MadPow
Bringing Psychophysiology to UX
â˘âŻSo letâs do it ourselves!
â˘âŻBiophysical signals can indicate usability problems
â˘âŻ Ward & Marsden (2002) built a âgoodâ and âbadâ interface and compared subjectsâ biometrics
â˘âŻ They found that the âbadâ interface caused higher skin conductivity, lower blood volume, and increased
pulse rate
â˘âŻ Lin and Hu (2005) had subjects play a game and do increasingly frustrating tasks â with
similar results
â˘âŻUnderstanding participantsâ biometrics gives us insight into trends
â˘âŻ Stickel (2009) found that participants who did not do well on tasks maintained high stress
levels and continued to perform poorly on subsequent tasks
24
25. @MadPow
Bringing Psychophysiology to UX
â˘âŻThere are, of course, some caveats
â˘âŻWe want to mimic real-world experiences during a usability study
â˘âŻ A person sitting at a computer with wires protruding from various body parts isnât exactly real-
world
â˘âŻ Participant comfort is paramount
â˘âŻThink-aloud vs. Retrospective Think-aloud
â˘âŻ Employing psychophysical methods during a usability study has the same problem as with
eye tracking: a talking participant is a distracted participant
â˘âŻWe want to minimize cost (time and money)
25
26. @MadPow
Bringing Psychophysiology to UX
â˘âŻFocus the conversation on GSR
â˘âŻ Less invasive to measure
â˘âŻ Less subject to noise Affectivaâs Q Sensor
â˘âŻ Fast response time to view event related changes
â˘âŻ Can run multiple sessions per day with minimal incremental cost
â˘âŻ Process is still tricky, but is promising
â˘âŻGSR is one of the most promising biometric measures of arousal
(Henriques, et al, 2011)
â˘âŻ Though, there is the problem of valence: did the participant experience positive or negative
arousal?
â˘âŻ This can probably be alleviated by simply looking at what the user was doing â determine the
context of the GSR spike
â˘âŻ Heart Rate Variability has also been shown to measure emotional valence
26
27. @MadPow
What Can We Expect From this Effort?
â˘âŻWe can expect to break through the participantsâ cognitive bias that is
inherent in traditional usability studies
â˘âŻ Ever have a participant struggle through a task and rate it as easy?
â˘âŻWe can expect to get objective, quantitative data to which stakeholders
can more easily relate
â˘âŻ Explaining that people sweat when aroused is easier than explaining scanpaths
â˘âŻWe can expect to have a better understanding of what our participants are
feeling
â˘âŻ If a design is causing participants undue stress, it would be best if we knew about it
27
28. @MadPow
In Conclusion
â˘âŻEmbrace âtraditionalâ eye tracking
â˘âŻMarry GSR and eye tracking data
â˘âŻ This is a VERY manual process right now â more tools are needed
â˘âŻScorn âsecret sauceâ â share your techniques and findings (both good and
bad) with the UX community
â˘âŻThis may be the quantitative measure for which weâve been waiting!
â˘âŻJoin the conversation! Search for the âPsychophysiology in Usabilityâ
group on LinkedIn
28
29. @MadPow
References
â˘âŻ Alves, R., Lim, V., Niforatos, E., Chen, M., Karapanos, E., & Nunes, NJ. (2012) Augmenting Customer Journey
Maps with quantitative empirical data: a case on EEG and eye tracking. Retrieved from:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3155
â˘âŻ Bojko, A. (2006) Using Eye Tracking to Compare Web Page Designs: A Case Study. Journal of Usability
Studies, 3(1). Retrieved from: http://www.upassoc.org/upa_publications/jus/2006_may/bojko_eye_tracking.html
â˘âŻ Dirican, AC., & GĂśktĂźrk, M. (2011) Psychophysiological Measures of Human Cognitive States Applied in Human
Computer Interaction. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1361-1367.
â˘âŻ Ehmke, C. & Wilson, S. (2007) Identifying Web Usability Problems from Eye-Tracking Data. Proceedings of HCI
2007. Retrieved from: http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_hc07_lppaper12.pdf
â˘âŻ Goldberg, J. & Kotval, X. (1999) Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: methods and constructs.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24, 631-645.
â˘âŻ Henriques, R., Paiva, A., & Antunes, C. (2012) On the need of new methods to mine electrodermal activity in
emotion-centered studies. Retrieved from:
http://web.ist.utl.pt/claudia.antunes/artigos/henriques2012admi.aamas.pdf
â˘âŻ Lin, T. & Hu, W. (2005) Do Physiological Data Relate to Traditional Usability Indexes? Proceedings of OZCHI
2005, Canberra, Australia.
29
30. @MadPow
References
â˘âŻ Poole, A. & Ball, L. (2005) Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research. In C. Ghaoui
(ed.), Encyclopedia of human computer interaction. Idea Group, Pennsylvania, 211-219. Retrieved from:
http://www.alexpoole.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/PooleBall-EyeTracking.pdf
â˘âŻ Stickel, C., Ebner, M., Steinbach-Nordmann, S., Searle, G., & Holzinger, A. (2009) Emotion Detection:
Application of the Valence Arousal Space for Rapid Biological Usability Testing to enhance Universal Access.
HCII Conference San Diego, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Retrieved from:
http://elearningblog.tugraz.at/scms/data/alt/publication/09_hci_emotion.pdf
â˘âŻ Vigouroux, R. (1888) The electrical resistance considered as a clinical sign. Progres Medicale, 3, 87-89.
â˘âŻ Ward, R., Marsden, P., Cahill, B., & Johnson, C. (2002) Physiological Responses to Well-Designed and Poorly-
Designed Interfaces. Proceedings of CHI 2002 Workshop on Physiological Computing. Minneapolis, MN.
Retrieved from:
http://physiologicalcomputing.net/chi2002/chi_papers/
ward_physiological_responses_to_well_designed_and_poorly_designed_interfaces.pdf
30
31. @MadPow
Thank you! Any questions?
Dan Berlin
Experience Research Director, Mad*Pow
dberlin@madpow.net
@banderlin 31