Upload
anne-osborne
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The effects of relevance of on-screen The effects of relevance of on-screen information on gaze behaviour and information on gaze behaviour and communication in 3-party groupscommunication in 3-party groups
Emma L Clayes
University of Glasgow
Supervisor: Prof. Anne Anderson
Co-Supervisor: Jim Mullin
BT Supervisor: Dr. David Hands
Sponsored by UK ESRC and BT
OutlineOutline
Background & HypothesesDesign and MethodResultsSummary Future workConclusion
Representations: form and locationRepresentations: form and location
Many studies concerning mediated communication (Finn et al, 1997) with different technologies, measures and tasks
Little research on the impact of different representations (e.g Sellen, 1995; Parise et al, 1996)
Representations and relevanceRepresentations and relevance
How does the form and location of representations impact on gaze and communication?
How does this interact with the relevance of on screen information ( e.g. task related information and representations in terms of the task role)
Evaluation techniques in CMCEvaluation techniques in CMC
Many different measures used to examine computer mediated communication (e.g. dialogue analysis, task performance, questionnaires)
Additional factors (e.g. task, no of participants, technology) and different methods have led to conflicting results
Methodological issuesMethodological issues
Three-party groupsProblem solving and social tasksCommunication analysis,
questionnaire responses and task performance
Eye-tracking as an evaluation technique
Eye-tracking in Psychology and HCIEye-tracking in Psychology and HCI
Well established measure of human information processing (Rayner, 1998)
Eye-gaze computer interfaces (Jacob, 1991)
Recent studies examining gaze and CMC-Velichkovsky et al (1997), Mullin et al (2001)
Communication and AttentionCommunication and Attention
Eye-tracking as an evaluation technique: What do users attend to when using
remote communication systems?
Does the relevance of on screen information impact on gaze behaviour?
Are patterns of gaze related to patterns of interaction within the group?
Eye-tracking in CMCEye-tracking in CMC
Exploratory questions:
Is it possible to obtain significant amounts of eye data during a non-restricted interaction?
Are participants consistent in their patterns of gaze across a screen?
Are these patterns meaningful?
Communication and RelevanceCommunication and Relevance
Relevance of on screen information (e.g. video data and video links)
Shared visual data more useful than video conference links (Daly-Jones et al 1998)
Communication and RelevanceCommunication and Relevance
Relevance of other collaborators (e.g. task role and status)
Status effects in mediated communication (Dubrovsky et al 1991, France et al, 2000)
Study 1Study 1
What on-screen features attract most gaze?
Does the position of representations on screen impact on mediated communication?
Does this interact with the type of task and relevance of information presented on screen?
Task 1-Problem-solving taskTask 1-Problem-solving task
Map task-collaborative problem-solving task
Two Instruction Givers (IG1 and IG2) have to instruct one other person (Instruction follower-IF) on how to draw a route on their map
Therefore, relationship between IG and IF more relevant to task success than IG1 and IG2
Task 1-Display ScreenTask 1-Display Screen
Task 1-Hypothesis ITask 1-Hypothesis I
Hypothesis I- Users will gaze more often at shared visual data ( i.e. the map) than video links of remote collaborators
Task 1-Hypothesis IITask 1-Hypothesis II
Do participants look equally often at the IF and IG video images?
Does the location of the video image affect gaze behaviour?
Task 1-Hypothesis IIITask 1-Hypothesis III
Do patterns of gaze reflect patterns of interaction within the group?
I.e. Do participants talk more often to the person they look most often at?
DesignDesign
2 factor mixed design
Relevance (map, video-IF, video-IG) within subjects
Location (video-IF top, video-IF bottom) between subjects
MethodMethod
Subjects- 10 groups of 3, 20 eye-tracked
2 maps, order of maps and location of IF video balanced
3 participants in different rooms-high quality audio and video links-
Eye tracked participant always an IG
ResultsResults
Screen divided into areas of interest for eye gaze analysis
Percentage analysis on different areas of interest and different fixations
Eye Data-Pictorial analysisEye Data-Pictorial analysis
Results-Hypothesis IResults-Hypothesis I
Participants spent significantly more time looking at the map (72.4%) than video image of IF (12%) and IG (10%)
Relevance of on-screen information impacts on gaze behaviour
F(2,36)=258.15, p<.001
Results-Hypothesis IIResults-Hypothesis II
Do participants look more often at IF compared to IG and is this affected by location?
Main effect of relevance (IF 12%, IG 10%) p<.05
No effect of location p>.05.
Results-Hypothesis IIResults-Hypothesis II
Significant interaction between relevance of video image and location of video image F(1,18)=5.73,p<.05
Participants looked more often at the instruction follower - only significant when the IF video was located in the top left of the screen (F=10.48, p<.05)
Results-Hypothesis IIIResults-Hypothesis III
Do patterns of gaze reflect patterns of interaction within the group?
Does the eye tracked participant direct more turns of speech to the IF or IG?
Turn combination analysis: IG1-IG2, IG1-IF No effects of relevance (task role-IG2/IF),
location of IF or an interaction between the two.
Results-Hypothesis IIIResults-Hypothesis III
Turn Combination resultsIG1-IF IG1-IG2
IF top left 20.7 22.6IF bottom left 19.5 23.2
20.1 22.9
Average no of turns by IG1-43
Task 1-SummaryTask 1-Summary
Users look more often at shared visual data (map 72.4%) than video images (22%)
Users gaze more often at IF than IG-only significant when IF video is located in top left of screen
Task 1-SummaryTask 1-Summary
Communication patterns reflect that IG directs almost equal number of turns to IG and IF- does not reflect patterns of gaze
Positional effect for salient video images?
Task 2-Relevance and StatusTask 2-Relevance and Status
Realistic task-mediated business meeting
Two confederates- one high status (boss) and one low status (marketing assistant)
Video data presented not essential to complete task
Task 2-Relevance and StatusTask 2-Relevance and Status
Hypothesis I- Do participants gaze more often at shared data compared to video images when the information is relevant, but not essential to complete the task.
Task 2-Relevance and StatusTask 2-Relevance and Status
Hypothesis II- Do participants look more often at a high-status collaborator?
Does the location of the high status video image impact on gaze behaviour?
Task 2-Relevance and StatusTask 2-Relevance and Status
Hypothesis III- do patterns of gaze reflect patterns of interaction within the group?
I.e do participants talk more often to the person they look most often at?
Task 2-DesignTask 2-Design
2 factor mixed design
Relevance (visual graphic, video-high status, video-low status) within subjects
Location (video-high status top, video-high status bottom) between subjects
Task 2-MethodTask 2-Method
2 confederates, 20 eye-tracked participants
3 participants in different rooms-high quality audio and video links
Task 2-Display ScreenTask 2-Display Screen
Results-Hypothesis IResults-Hypothesis I
Participants spent significantly less time looking at the low status video image (18%) than both the task feature (24.5%) and the high status video image (35%)
Relevance of on-screen information impacts on gaze behaviour (F(2, 36)=8.19, p<.05), no effect of location or an interaction.
Results-Hypothesis IIResults-Hypothesis II
Do participants gaze more often at the high status confederate compared to the low status confederate and does this interact with the location of video images?
Only sig main effect of status F(1,18)=22.19,p<.05, no effect of location or an interaction
Participants gazed more often at the high status confederate (35%) compared to the low status confederate (24.5%)
Results-Hypothesis IIIResults-Hypothesis III
Do patterns of gaze reflect patterns of interaction within the group?
Do participants direct more turns of speech to the high status confederate compared to the low status confederate?
Results-Hypothesis IIIResults-Hypothesis III
Turn combination analysis: sig effect of status, no effect of location or an interaction
Participant directs more turns of speech to high status confederate and this reflects patterns of gaze
Results-Hypothesis IIIResults-Hypothesis III
Turn Combination resultsParticipant-LS Participant-HS
HS top left 2.9 10.5HS bottom left 2.7 9.3
2.8 9.9
Average no of turns by Participant-13
Task 2-SummaryTask 2-Summary
Participants gaze less often at low status video compared to high status video and task feature
Participants gaze more often at high status video regardless of location
Interaction in Task 1 not replicated- video images attract more gaze and main effect of status found
Patterns of gaze reflect patterns of communication
Study 1-SummaryStudy 1-Summary
Participants gaze more often at shared data in task 1, not in task 2
Significant interaction between location and relevance of video images in task 1, not in task 2
Overwhelming impact of status on gaze and communication in task 2
Communication patterns reflect patterns of gaze in Task 2, not Task 1
Study 1-SummaryStudy 1-Summary
Eye tracking provides valuable information about mediated interaction
Distribution of attention related to experimental task manipulations
Positional effect for salient video images?
Study 1-Eye-tracking in CMCStudy 1-Eye-tracking in CMC
Exploratory questions about eye tracking answered
Data capture rate high –managed to track on average 70% of participants who took part
Average of 80% of fixations directed on screen during task
Patterns of gaze consistent and meaningful
Future WorkFuture Work
Same tasks, different design Video images placed in 4 corners of the screen,
therefore 4 conditions for each task
Task 1:Provisional results suggest interaction not replicated- always gaze more often at the map
Task 2:Difference in gaze distribution to videos smaller when video images are placed on same side of the screen than when they are placed on opposite sides of the screen
ConclusionConclusion
Eye tracking can be used successfully as an evaluation technique
Task differences and status effects robust- reflected in both patterns of gaze and communication
May be positional effect for salient video images?
ConclusionConclusion
Implications for the design of remote communication systems
Context in which system is to be applied very important e.g. social or problem solving
Further research required on positional effects-may be used to enhance or reduce amount of gaze directed to representations