Development of an Experimental Setup to Investigate Multimodal Information Representation and Superposition for Elderly Users in Healthcare Context

  • Matthias WilleEmail author
  • Tobias Seinsch
  • Rebecca Kummer
  • Peter Rasche
  • Sabine Theis
  • Christina Bröhl
  • Alexander Mertens
  • Christopher Schlick
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9736)


This paper describes the development of an experimental setup to test the multimodal information representation and superposition for elderly users in a categorical decision task. Due to the demographic change more and more elderly people will have to be supported monitoring their health on their own with new digital devices. Therefore it should be investigated how multimodal information presentation can help to compensate restrictions in perception that often come along with age. After reflecting the theoretical background an experimental setup is described. This setup will be realized as a native Android App to ensure ecological validity. The construction of the App and different tests measuring timing irregularities in the technical setup are also described.


Multimodal perception Elderly Dual task Categorical decision task 



The interdisciplinary research project Tech4Age is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under Grant No. 16SV7111. It is part of the Institute of Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics of RWTH Aachen University. For more details and information, please see


  1. 1.
    Schlick, C.M., Bruder, R., Luczak, R.: Arbeitswissenschaft. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Naegele, G.: Zwischen Arbeit und Rente: gesellschaftliche Chancen und Risiken älterer Arbeitsnehmer, 2nd edn. Maro Verlag, Augsburg (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Astor, M., Koch, C., Klose, G., Reimann, F., Rochhold, S., Stemann, M.: Zu alt, um Neues zu lernen? Chancen und Grenzen des gemeinsamen Lernens von älteren und jüngeren Mitarbeitern. In: QUEM-Materialien der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Betriebliche Weiterbildungsforschung e.V. (AWBF), vol. 77, pp. 1–165 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adenauer, S.: Die Potenziale älterer Mitarbeiter im Betrieb erkennen und nutzen. In: Angewandte Arbeitswissenschaft, vol. 172, pp. 19–34 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jochems, N.: Altersdifferenzierte Gestaltung der Mensch-Rechner-Interaktion am Beispiel von Projektmanagementaufgaben. In: Schlick, C.M. (ed.) Schriftenreihe Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics, Dissertation RWTH Aachen. Shaker-Verlag, Aachen (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czaja, S.J.: Computer technology and the older adult. In: Helander, M.G., Landauer, T.K., Prabhu, P. (eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn, pp. 797–812. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sun, F.C., Stark, L., Nguyen, A., Wong, J., Lakshminarayanan, V., Mueller, E.: Changes in accommodation with age: static and dynamic. Am. J. Otometry Physiol. Opt. 65(6), 492–498 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amann, A.: Umwelt, Mobilität und Kompetenzen im Alter. In: Amann, A. (ed.) Kurswechsel für das Alter, pp. 105–119. Böhlau Verlag, Wien (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Granjean, E.: Fitting the Task to the Man: An Ergonomic Approach. Taylor & Francis limited, London (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marsiske, M., Klumb, P., Baltes, M.M.: Everyday activity patterns and sensory functioning in old age. Psychol. Aging 12(3), 444–457 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schieber, F.: Aging and the senses. In: Birren, J.E., Sloane, R.B., Cohen, G.D. (eds.) Handbook of Mental Health and Aging, pp. 252–306. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wandke, H., Blessing, L.: Gestural Interfaces for elderly users: help or hindrance. In: Kopp, S., Wachsmuth, I. (eds.) Gesture in Embodied Communication and Human-Computer Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5934, pp. 269–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charnes, N., Demiris, G., Krupinski, E.: Designing Telehealth for an Aging Population – A Human Factors Perspective. CRC Press, Boca Raton (FL) (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vercruyssen, M.: Age and motor performance for the elderly. In: van Berlo, L.J., Rietseman, J. (eds.) Gerontechnology - Human factors for an Aging Population - Course Material First International Post-graduate Course on Gerontechnology. Center for Biomedical and Health Care Technology, Eindhoven (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Small Sr., A.M.: Design for Older People. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors, pp. 496–504. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Botwinick, J., Storandt, M.: Age-differences in reaction-time as a function of experience stimulus-intensity and preparatory interval. J. Genet. Psychol. 123(2), 209–217 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spence, C.: Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review. Attention Percept. Psychophysics 73(4), 971–995 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wickens, C.D.: The structure of attentional resources. In: Nickerson, R. (ed.) Attention and performance VIII, pp. 239–257. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey (1980)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wickens, C.D.: Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 3(2), 159–177 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Talsma, D.: Predictive coding and multisensory integration: an attentional account of the multisensory mind. Frontiers Integr. Neurosci. 9(19), 13 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, J.-H., Poliakoff, E., Spence, C.: The effect of multimodal feedback presented via a touch screen on the performance of older adults. In: Altinsoy, M., Jekosch, U., Brewster, S. (eds.) HAID 2009. LNCS, vol. 5763, pp. 128–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vitense, H.S., Jacko, J.A., Emery, V.K.: Foundation for improved interaction by individuals with visual impairments through multimodal feedback. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 2(1), 76–87 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jacko, J., Emery, V.K., Edwards, P.J., Ashok, M., Barnard, L., Kongnakorn, T., Moloney, K.P., Sainfort, F.: The effects of multimodal feedback on older adults’ task performance given varying levels of computer experience. Behav. Inf. Technol. 23(4), 247–264 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ellis, R.D., Allaire, J.C.: Modeling computer interest in older adults: the role of age, education, computer knowledge, and computer anxiety. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 41(3), 345–355 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dobreva, M.S., O’Neill, W.E., Paige, G.D.: Influence of age, spatial memory, and ocular fixation on localization of auditory, visual, and bimodal targets by human subjects. Exp. Brain Res. 223(4), 441–455 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DeLoss, D.J., Pierce, R.S., Andersen, G.J.: Multisensory integration, aging, and the sound-induced flash illusion. Psychol. Aging 28(3), 802–812 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., Shimojo, S.: Illusions: what you see is what you hear. Nature 408(6814), 788 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Setti, A., Burke, K.E., Kenny, R.A., Newell, F.N.: Is inefficient multisensory processing associated with falls in older people? Exp. Brain Res. 209(3), 375–384 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rozencwajg, P., Bertoux, M.L.: Categorization and aging as measured by an adapted version of Wechsler’s similarities test. Curr. Psychol. Lett. Behav. Brain Cogn. 24(2), 82–96 (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lenoble, Q., Bordaberry, P., Rougier, M.B., Boucart, M., Delord, S.: Influence of visual deficits on object categorization in normal aging. Exp. Aging Res. 39(2), 145–161 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Molholm, S., Ritter, W., Javitt, D.C., Foxe, J.J.: Multisensory visual–auditory object recognition in humans: a high-density electrical mapping study. Cereb. Cortex 14(4), 452–465 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hecht, D., Reiner, M., Karni, A.: Multisensory enhancement: gains in choice and in simple response times. Exp. Brain Res. 189(2), 133–143 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Wille
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tobias Seinsch
    • 1
  • Rebecca Kummer
    • 1
  • Peter Rasche
    • 1
  • Sabine Theis
    • 1
  • Christina Bröhl
    • 1
  • Alexander Mertens
    • 1
  • Christopher Schlick
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Industrial Engineering and ErgonomicsRWTH-Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations