Emotion Detection: Application of the Valence Arousal Space for Rapid Biological Usability Testing to Enhance Universal Access

  • Christian Stickel
  • Martin Ebner
  • Silke Steinbach-Nordmann
  • Gig Searle
  • Andreas Holzinger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5614)

Abstract

Emotion is an important mental and physiological state, influencing cognition, perception, learning, communication, decision making, etc. It is considered as a definitive important aspect of user experience (UX), although at least well developed and most of all lacking experimental evidence. This paper deals with an application for emotion detection in usability testing of software. It describes the approach to utilize the valence arousal space for emotion modeling in a formal experiment. Our study revealed correlations between low performance and negative emotional states. Reliable emotion detection in usability tests will help to prevent negative emotions and attitudes in the final products. This can be a great advantage to enhance Universal Access.

Keywords

Biological Rapid Usability Testing Valence Arousal Emotion 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Stephanidis, C., Savidis, A.: Universal Access in the Information Society: Methods, Tools Interaction Technologies. Universal Access in the Information Society 1(1), 40–55 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams, R., Russell, C.: Lessons from ambient intelligence prototypes for universal access and the user experience. In: Stephanidis, C., Pieper, M. (eds.) ERCIM Ws UI4ALL 2006. LNCS, vol. 4397, pp. 229–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Nischelwitzer, A.: On some Aspects of Improving Mobile Applications for the Elderly. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 923–932. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frijda, N.H.: The emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riseberg, J., Klein, J., Fernandez, R., Picard, R.W.: Frustrating the user on purpose: using biosignals in a pilot study to detect the user’s emotional state. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 227–228 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ward, R.D., Marsden, P.H.: Physiological responses to different Web page designs. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59(1-2), 199–212 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stickel, C., Fink, J., Holzinger, A.: Enhancing Universal Access – EEG based Learnability Assessment. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4556, pp. 813–822. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stickel, C., Scerbakov, A., Kaufmann, T., Ebner, M.: Usability Metrics of Time and Stress - Biological Enhanced Performance Test of a University Wide Learning Management System. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) 4th Symposium of the Workgroup Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering of the Austrian-Computer-Society, pp. 173–184. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience - a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cockton, G.: Putting Value into E-valu-ation. In: Law, E.L.-C., Hvannberg, E.T., Cockton, G. (eds.) Maturing Usability: Quality in Software, Interaction and Value, pp. 287–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ebner, M., Holzinger, A.: Successful Implementation of User-Centered Game Based Learning in Higher Education – an Example from Civil Engineering. Computers & Education 49(3), 873–890 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Isen, A.M., Daubman, K.A., Nowicki, G.P.: Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 1122–1131 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adams, R.: Decision and stress: cognition and e-accessibility in the information workplace. Springer Universal Access in the Information Society 5(4), 363–379 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional Design: Why we love or hate everyday things. Basic Books, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schlosberg, H.: 3-Dimensions of Emotions. Psychological Review 61(2), 81–88 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holzinger, A.: Usability Engineering for Software Developers. Communications of the ACM 48(1), 71–74 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ortony, A., Turner, T.J.: What’s basic about basic Emotions. Psychological Review 97(3), 315–331 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hüther, G.: Biology of fear. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chanel, G., Ansari-Asl, K., Pun, T.: Valence-arousal evaluation using physiological signals in an emotion recall paradigm. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 375–380. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Russell, J.A.: A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 1161–1178 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Remington, N.A., Fabrigar, L.R., Visser, P.S.: Reexamining the circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(2), 286–300 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Picard, R.W., Vyzas, E., Healey, J.: Toward machine emotional intelligence: Analysis of affective physiological state. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 23(10), 1175–1191 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muter, P., Furedy, J.J., Vincent, A., Pelcowitz, T.: User-Hostile Systems and Patterns of Psychophysiological Activity. Computers in Human Behavior 9(1), 105–111 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schapkin, S.A., Freude, G., Erdmann, U., Ruediger, H.: Stress and managers performance: Age-related changes in psychophysiological reactions to cognitive load. In: Harris, D. (ed.) HCII 2007 and EPCE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4562, pp. 417–425. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rengger, R., Macleod, M., Bowden, R., Drynan, A., Blayney, M.: MUSiC Performance Measurement Handbook, V2. NPL, DITC, Teddington (UK) (1993) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis, Abington (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Stickel
    • 1
  • Martin Ebner
    • 1
  • Silke Steinbach-Nordmann
    • 2
  • Gig Searle
    • 3
  • Andreas Holzinger
    • 3
  1. 1.Social Learning/Computing and Information ServicesGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE)KaiserslauternGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Medical Informatics, Statistics and DocumentationResearch Unit HCI4MED Medical University GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations