Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Using EEG Frontal Asymmetry to Predict IT User’s Perceptions Regarding Usefulness, Ease of Use and Playfulness

  • Christos N. Moridis
  • Vasileios Terzis
  • Anastasios A. Economides
  • Anna Karlovasitou
  • Vasileios E. Karabatakis


Information systems (IS) community is increasingly interested in employing neuroscience tools and methods in order to develop new theories concerning Human–computer interaction (HCI) and further understand IS acceptance models. The new field of NeuroIS has been introduced to address these issues. NeuroIS researchers have proposed encephalography (EEG), among other neuroscience instruments, as a valuable usability metric, when used effectively in appropriately designed experiments. Moreover, numerous researchers have suggested that EEG frontal asymmetry may serve as an important metric of user experience. Based on the aforementioned evidence, this study aims to integrate frontal asymmetry with Technology acceptance model (TAM). Particularly, we assumed that frontal asymmetry might predict users’ perceptions regarding Usefulness and Ease of Use. Furthermore, we hypothesized that frontal asymmetry might also affect (influence) users’ Perceived Playfulness. Specifically, 82 (43 females and 39 males) undergraduate students were chosen to use a Computer-Based Assessment (while being connected to the EEG) in the context of an introductory informatics course. Results confirmed our hypothesis as well as points of theory about Information technology (IT) acceptance variables. This is one of the first studies to suggest that frontal asymmetry could serve as a valuable tool for examining IT acceptance constructs and better understanding HCI.


TAM EEG frontal asymmetry Perceived playfulness Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, J. J. B., Coan, J. A., & Nazarian, M. (2004). Issues and assumptions on the road from raw signals to metrics of frontal asymmetry in emotion. Biological Psychology, 67, 183–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The Partial Least Squares approach to causal modelling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(1), 285–309.Google Scholar
  5. Bhandari, U., & Chang, K. (2014). Role of emotions and aesthetics in ICT usage for underserved communities: a NeuroIS investigation. In Proceedings of ICIS 2014. Auckland: AISGoogle Scholar
  6. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation Modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern business research methods (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Coan, J. A., & Allen, J.J.B. (2003). Frontal EEG asymmetry and the behavioral activation and inhibition systems. Psychophysiology, 40, 106–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (2004). Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biological Psychology, 67, 7–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, R. J. (1988). EEG measures of cerebral asymmetry: Conceptual and methodological issues. International Journal of Neuroscience, 39, 71–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, R. J., Ekman, P., Saron, C., Senulis, J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). Approach/withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry: Emotional expression and brain physiology. I. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 330–341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson, R. J., & Fox, N. A. (1989). Frontal brain asymmetry predicts infants’ response to maternal separation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 127–131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson, R. J., Taylor, N., & Saron, C. (1979). Hemisphericity and styles of information processing: Individual differences in EEG asymmetry and their relationship to cognitive performance. In Abstracts of the papers presented at the eighteenth annual meeting of the society for psychophysiological research. Psychophysiology. 16, 197.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawson, G., Panagiotides, H., Klinger, L. G., & Hill, D. (1992). The role of frontal lobe functioning in the development of infant self-regulatory behavior. Brain and Cognition, 20, 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dien, J. (1998). Issues in the application of the average reference: Review, critiques, and recommendations. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimoka, A. (2010). What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dimoka, A., & Davis, F. D. (2008). Where does tam reside in the brain? the neural mechanisms underlying technology adoption. In ICIS 2008 Proceedings. Paper 169Google Scholar
  21. Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P. A., & Davis, F. D. (2007). NEUROIS: The potential of cognitive neuroscience for information systems research. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on information systems (ICIS) (pp 1–20).Google Scholar
  22. Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P. A., & Davis, F. D. (2010). NEURO-IS: The potential of cognitive neuroscience for information systems research. In Information systems research. Articles in advance (pp. 1–18).Google Scholar
  23. Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behayior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fox, N. A. (1994). Dynamic cerebral processes underlying emotion regulation. In, The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 240.Google Scholar
  28. Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Calkins, S. D., & Schmidt, L. A. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of behavioral inhibition and exuberance: Psychophysiological and behavioral influences across the first four years of life. Child Development, 72, 1–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Galletta, D., et al. (2007). Does our web site stress you out? In Proceedings of the international conference on information systems. Paper 50 (research in progress).Google Scholar
  30. Glimcher, P. W., et al. (Eds.). (2009). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Clarifying the emotive functions of asymmetrical frontal cortical activity. Psychophysiology, 40, 838–848.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. A., & Peterson, C. K. (2010). The role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in emotion-related phenomena: A review and update. Biological Psychology, 84, 451–462.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., Serra, R., & Gable, P. A. (2011). The effect of commitment on relative left frontal cortical activity: Tests of the action-based model of dissonance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B. (2015) Using NeuroIS to better understand activities performed on mobile devices. In: F. Davis, R. Riedl, vom Brocke J., P. M. Léger & A. Randolph (Eds.), Information systems and neuroscience. Lecture notes in information systems and organisation (Vol. 10). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Kapoor, A., & Picard, R. W. (2005). Multimodal affect recognition in learning environments. In Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on multimedia (pp. 677–682). Singapore: HiltonGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, J. C., & Tan, D. S. (2006). Using a low-cost electroencephalogramph for task classification in HCI research. In Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology in Montreux, Switzerland, October 15–18 (pp. 81–90). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, Y. C. (2008). The role of perceived resources in online learning adoption. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1423–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liapis, C., & Chatterjee, S. (2011). On a NeuroIS design science model. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6629, 440–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loos, P., Riedl, R., Müller-Putz, G., vom Brocke, J., Davis, F. D., Banker, R. D., & Léger, P. -M. (2010). NeuroIS: Neuroscientific approaches in the investigation and development of information systems. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6, 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milic, N. (2017). Consumer grade brain-computer interfaces: An entry path into NeuroIS Domains. In: F. Davis, R. Riedl, vom Brocke J., P. M. Léger & A. Randolph (Eds.), Information systems and neuroscience. Lecture notes in information systems and organisation (Vol. 16). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Minas, R. K., Kazman, R., & Tempero, E. (2017). Neurophysiological Impact of Software design processes on software developers. In D. Schmorrow & C. Fidopiastis (Eds.), Augmented cognition. Enhancing cognition and behavior in complex human environments. AC 2017. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 10285). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information and Management, 38(4), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore, M. M., Storey, V. C., & Randolph, A. B. (2005). User profiles for facilitating conversations with locked-in users. In Proceedings of the international conference on information systems (pp. 923–936).Google Scholar
  44. Moridis, C. N., Terzis, V., Economides, A. A., Karlovasitou, A., & Karabatakis, V. E. (2012). Integrating TAM with EEG frontal asymmetry. In 7th mediterranean conference on information systems (MCIS 2012).Google Scholar
  45. Ong, C., & Lai, J. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behaviour, 22(5), 816–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Randolph, A. B., Karmakar, S., & Jackson, M. M. (2006). Toward predicting control of a brain-computer interface. In Proceedings of the international conference on information systems (pp. 803–812).Google Scholar
  47. Riedl, R., Banker, R. D., Benbasat, I., Davis, F. D., Dennis, A. R., Dimoka, A., Gefen, D., Gupta, A., Ischebeck, A., Kenning, P., Mόller-Putz, G., Pavlou, P. A., Straub, D. W., vom Brocke, J., & Weber, B. (2010a). On the foundations of NeuroIS: reflections on the Gmunden Retreat 2009. Communications of the AIS, 27, 243–264.Google Scholar
  48. Riedl, R., Hubert, M., & Kenning, P. (2010b). Are there neural gender differences in online trust? An fMRI study on the perceived trustworthiness of eBay offers. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 397–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). University of Hamburg, Germany.
  50. Steiner, A.R.W., & Coan, J. A. (2011). Prefrontal asymmetry predicts affect, but not beliefs about affect. Biological Psychology, 88, 65–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1032–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., Economides, A. A. (2012). The effect of emotional feedback on behavioral intention to use computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 59(2), 710–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling in information system using Partial Least Square. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(2), 5–40.Google Scholar
  54. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vom Brocke, J., Riedl, R., & Léger, P. M. (2011). Neuroscience in design-oriented research: Exploring new potentials. In H. Jain, A. P. Sinha & P. Vitharana (Eds.), Service-oriented perspectives in design science research, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6629, pp. 427–439). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Willems, R. M., Van der Haegen, L., Fisher, S. E., Francks, C. (2014). On the other hand: Including left-handers in cognitive neuroscience and neurogenetics. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(3), 193–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson, G. M., & Sasse, M. A. (2004). From doing to being: Getting closer to the user experience. Interacting with Computers, 16(4), 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christos N. Moridis
    • 1
  • Vasileios Terzis
    • 2
  • Anastasios A. Economides
    • 3
  • Anna Karlovasitou
    • 4
  • Vasileios E. Karabatakis
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Science and TechnologyInternational Hellenic UniversityThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Hellenic Electricity Distribution, Network Operator S.A.AthensGreece
  3. 3.Interdepartmental Programme of Postgraduate Studies in Information SystemsUniversity of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece
  4. 4.Laboratory of Clinical Neurophysiology AHEPA HospitalAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  5. 5.Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology, School of MedicineAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations