The Role of Modality in Notification Performance

  • David Warnock
  • Marilyn McGee-Lennon
  • Stephen Brewster
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6947)

Abstract

The primary users of home care technology often have significant sensory impairments. Multimodal interaction can make home care technology more accessible and appropriate, yet most research in the field of multimodal notifications is not aimed at the home but at office or high-pressure environments. This paper presents an experiment that compared the disruptiveness and effectiveness of visual, auditory, tactile and olfactory notifications. The results showed that disruption in the primary task was the same regardless of the notification modality. It was also found that differences in notification effectiveness were due to the inherent traits of a modality, e.g.olfactory notifications were slowest to deliver. The results of this experiment allow researchers and developers to capitalize on the different properties of multimodal techniques, with significant implications for home care technology and technology targeted at users with sensory impairments.

Keywords

Multimodal interfaces accessibility and usability technology in healthcare 

References

  1. 1.
    Arroyo, E., Selker, T., Stouffs, A.: Interruptions as multimodal outputs: which are the less disruptive? In: Proceedings Fourth IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 479–482 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arroyo, E., Selker, T.: Self-adaptive multimodal-interruption interfaces. In: International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 6–11 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailey, B.P., Konstan, J.A., Carlis, J.V.: The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. In: Proceedings of INTERACT, pp. 593–601 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker-Ward, L., Ornstein, P.A.: Age differences in visual-spatial memory performance: do children really out-perform adults when playing Concentration? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 26(4), 331–332 (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berg, W.P., Alessio, H.M., Mills, E.M., Tong, C.: Circumstances and consequences of falls in independent community-dwelling older adults. Age and Ageing 26(4), 261–268 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewster, S., Brown, L.M.: Tactons: structured tactile messages for non-visual information display. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 53, pp. 15–23 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewster, S., McGookin, D., Miller, C.: Olfoto: designing a smell-based interaction. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 653–662. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burmistrov, I., Leonova, A.: Do Interrupted Users Work Faster or Slower? The Micro-analysis of Computerized Text Editing Task. In: Proceedings of HCI International on Human-Computer Interaction: Theory and Practice, pp. 621–625 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cades, D.M., Trafton, J.G., Boehm-Davis, D.: Mitigating disruptions: Can resuming an interrupted task be trained? In: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 50(3), pp. 368–371 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cellier, J.-M., Eyrolle, H.: Interference between switched tasks. Ergonomics 35(1), 25–36 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen, S.: Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin 88(1), 82–108 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Department of Health: National Service Framework for Older People (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gellatly, A., Jones, S., Best, A.: The Development of Skill at Concentration. Australian Journal of Psychology 40(1), 1–10 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gillie, T., Broadbent, D.: What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research 50(4), 243–250 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoggan, E., Brewster, S.: Designing audio and tactile crossmodal icons for mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 162–169 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoggan, E., Crossan, A., Brewster, S., Kaaresoja, T.: Audio or tactile feedback: which modality when? In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2253–2256. ACM, Boston (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kapitsa, M., Blinnikova, I.: Task performance under influence of interruptions. In: Operator Functional State: the Assessment and Prediction of Human Performance Degradation in Complex Tasks, pp. 323–329. Ios Pr. Inc., Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kane, R.A.: Long-Term Care and a Good Quality of Life: Bringing Them Closer Together. Gerontologist 41(3), 293–304 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Latorella, K.A.: Effects of Modality on Interrupted Flight Deck Performance: Implications for Data Link. Technical report. NASA Langley Technical Report Server (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mark, G., Gudith, D., Klocke, U.: The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 107–110 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McBryan, T., Gray, P.: A Model-Based Approach to Supporting Configuration in Ubiquitous Systems. In: Proceedings of Int. Conf. on Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, pp. 167–180 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGee-Lennon, M.R., Wolters, M., McBryan, T.: Audio Reminders in the Home Environment. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Auditory Display, pp. 437–444 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miyata, Y., Norman, D.: Psychological issues in support of multiple activities. In: User Centered Systems Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, ch.13, pp. 265–284. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah (1986)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Monk, C.A., Boehm-Davis, D.A., Trafton, J.G.: Very brief interruptions result in resumption cost. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, p. 1606 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Office for National Statistics: National Population Projections (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schumann-Hengsteler, R.: Children’s and adults’ visuospatial memory: The game concentration. Journal of Genetic Psychology 157(1), 77-92 (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vastenburg, M.H., Keyson, D.V., Ridder, H.: Considerate home notification systems: A user study of acceptability of notifications in a living-room laboratory. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67(9), 814-826 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Warnock, D.: A Subjective Evaluation of Multimodal Notifications. In: To Appear in Proceedings of Pervasive Health 2011, Dublin, Ireland (May 2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Warnock
    • 1
  • Marilyn McGee-Lennon
    • 1
  • Stephen Brewster
    • 1
  1. 1.Glasgow Interactive Systems Group, Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations