Advertisement

EmoBall: A Study on a Tangible Interface to Self-report Emotional Information Considering Digital Competences

  • Carolina FuentesEmail author
  • Iyubanit RodríguezEmail author
  • Valeria Herskovic
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9456)

Abstract

Monitoring emotional information is highly complex: it is difficult to accurately register it due to subjectivity and technical complexities; and it is difficult to provide reliability and incorporate contextual information. However, it is an important problem in healthcare, since it is useful to monitor people, especially if they are at a high risk of depression or other mental illnesses. Research in affective computing seeks to generate new methodologies to help store, analyze and share this information. Several techniques have been proposed to monitor emotions. One of them is self-report, which is a subjective method of measuring emotions from the perspective of the individual. This work presents a new tangible interface to self-report emotions, called EmoBall, specifically designed for people with low digital competences, since it requires practically no previous knowledge of technology. We evaluated this interface and analyze the results of the evaluation, considering the digital skills of the interviewed users. We found EmoBall to be a promising first step towards a tangible interface to self-report emotions; however, we did not find evidence of digital competences affecting user perceptions of the device. This paper discusses our insights regarding the reasons for these results, as well as directions for future research.

Keywords

Focus Group Focus Group Discussion Usability Evaluation Emotional Information Ambient Intelligence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was partially funded by CONICYT Chile PhD scholarship grant, CONICIT and MICIT Costa Rica PhD scholarship grant, Universidad de Costa Rica and LACCIR Project Grant R1212LAC001.

References

  1. 1.
    Balaam, M., Fitzpatrick, G., Good, J., Luckin, R.: Exploring affective technologies for the classroom with the subtle stone. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2010, pp. 1623–1632. ACM, New York (2010). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1753326.1753568
  2. 2.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual sus scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Botta, M., Catenazzi, N., Sommaruga, L.: Human centered design framework to generate novel ambient intelligence interface solutions. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces DPPI 2011, pp. 69:1–69:2. ACM, New York (2011). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2347504.2347580
  4. 4.
    Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooke, J.: Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deci, E., Ryan, R.: Intrinsic motivation inventory (imi) (2005). Accessed, July 23, 2006Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edge, D., Blackwell, A.: Peripheral tangible interaction by analytic design. In: TEI 2009 Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. ACM (2009). http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=192903
  8. 8.
    Enideo: Worditout (2015). http://worditout.com
  9. 9.
    Ferrari, A.: Digital competence in practice: an analysis of frameworks. Technical report, Research Centre of the European Commission, September 2012. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC68116.pdf
  10. 10.
    Fuentes, C., Hernandez, C., Escobedo, L., Herskovic, V., Tentori, M.: Promoting self-reflection of social isolation through persuasive mobile technologies: the case of mother caregivers of children with cancer. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interaction 30(10), 802–814 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2014.927279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gallacher, S., O’Connor, J., Bird, J., Rogers, Y., Capra, L., Harrison, D., Marshall, P.: Mood squeezer: lightening up the workplace through playful and lightweight interactions. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & #38; Social Computing CSCW 2015, pp. 891–902. ACM, New York (2015). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2675133.2675170
  12. 12.
    Ishii, H.: The tangible user interface and its evolution. Commun. ACM 51(6), 32–36 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mennicken, S., Brush, A.J., Asta, R., James, S.: Finding roles for interactive furniture in homes with emotocouch. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication, UbiComp 2014 Adjunct, pp. 923–930. ACM, New York (2014). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2638728.2641547
  14. 14.
    Mora, S., Rivera-Pelayo, V., Muller, L.: Supporting mood awareness in collaborative settings. In: 2011 7th International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (CollaborateCom), pp. 268–277, October 2011Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OECD: The definition and selection of key competencies. Technical report, The OECD Program Definition and Selection of Competencies, Executive Summary, June 2005. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf
  16. 16.
    Parliament, E., the Council: Measuring digital skills across the eu: Eu wide indicators of digital competence. Technical report, European Commission funded DIGCOMP project, May 2014Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quintanilha, M.: Buddywall: a tangible user interface for wireless remote communication. In: CHI 2008 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2008, pp. 3711–3716. ACM, New York (2008). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1358628.1358918
  18. 18.
    Shaer, O., Hornecker, E.: Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Inter. 3(12), 4–137 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000026 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Snyder, J., Matthews, M., Chien, J., Chang, P.F., Sun, E., Abdullah, S., Gay, G.: Moodlight: Exploring personal and social implications of ambient display of biosensor data. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & #38; Social Computing, CSCW 2015, pp. 143–153. ACM, New York (2015). http://doi.acm.org.ezproxy.puc.cl/10.1145/2675133.2675191
  20. 20.
    Tullis, T., Albert, W.: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williams, M.A., Asta, R., O’Dowd, C., Czerwinski, M., Morris, M.: Swarm: an actuated wearable for mediating affect. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI 2015, pp. 293–300. ACM, New York (2015). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2677199.2680565
  22. 22.
    Xie, L., Antle, A.N., Motamedi, N.: Are tangibles more fun?: comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. 191–198. ACM (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations