Physiological Effects of Delayed System Response Time on Skin Conductance

  • David Hrabal
  • Christin Kohrs
  • André Brechmann
  • Jun-Wen Tan
  • Stefanie Rukavina
  • Harald C. Traue
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7742)

Abstract

Research on psychological effects of delayed system response time (SRT) has not lost its topicality, since uncertainty in providing immediate system response remains, even after decades of stunning enhancements in computer science. When delays occur, the user’s expectancy about the temporal course of an interaction is not fulfilled which he may interpret as irritating. The current study investigates physiological effects on the skin conductance (SC) and its particular patterns in two experimental scenarios. In the first scenario, unexpected delays of 0.5, 1, and 2 seconds occur while the subject is performing a two-choice auditory categorization task, expecting the system to respond immediately after their input. The second scenario is a wizard-of-oz (woz) scenario in which the user plays the game ‘concentration’ that is being manipulated in order to induce various emotional states. During the ‘negative’ sequences delays of 6 seconds are triggered. The patterns of the mean SC curves during delays are analyzed.

Keywords

skin conductance system repsonse time emotion recognition physiological patterns 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dabrowski, J., Munson, E.V.: 40 years of searching for the best computer system response time. Interacting with Computers 23, 555–564 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C.: Quality of services. In: Designing the User Interface - Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 4th edn., pp. 453–475. Pearson Addison Wesley, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shneiderman, B.: Response time and display rate in human performance with computers. ACM Comput. Surv. 16, 265–285 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoysniemi, J., Hamalainen, P., Turkki, L.: Wizard of oz prototyping of computer vision based action games for children. In: IDC 2004: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 27–34. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Molin, L.: Wizard-of-oz prototyping for co-operative interaction design of graphical user interfaces. In: NordiCHI 2004: Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 425–428. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernsen, N.O., Dybkjaer, H., Dybkjaer, L.: Wizard of oz prototyping: How and when? In: CCI Working Papers in Cognitive Science and HCI (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akers, D.: Wizard of oz for participatory design: inventing a gestural interface for 3d selection of neural pathway estimates. In: CHI 2006: CHI 2006 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 454–459. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bradley, M., Lang, P.: Measuring emotion: the self-assessment minikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 25(1), 49–59 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benedek, M., Kaernbach, C.: A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 190(1), 80–91 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Venables, P.H., Christie, M.J.: Electrodermal activity. In: Martin, I., Venables, P.H. (eds.) Techniques in Psychophysiology (1980)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massey, F.J.: The kolmogorov-smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association 46, 68–78 (1951)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuhmann, W., Boucsein, W., Schaefer, F., Alexander, J.: Experimental investigation of psychophysiological stress-reactions induced by different system response times in human-computer interaction. Ergonomics 30(6), 933–943 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pérez-Quiñones, M.A., Sibert, J.L.: A collaborative model of feedback in human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground, pp. 316–323. ACM, New York (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ben-Shakhar, G.: The roles of stimulus novelty and significance in determining the electrodermal orienting response: Interactive versus additive approaches. Psychophysiology 31, 402–411 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Tassinary, L.G., Berntson, G.: The Electrodermal System. In: Handbook of Psychophysiology, 168, Cam (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Hrabal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christin Kohrs
    • 1
    • 2
  • André Brechmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jun-Wen Tan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stefanie Rukavina
    • 1
    • 2
  • Harald C. Traue
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Medical PsychologyUlm UniversityUlmGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz Institute for NeurobiologyMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations