Quantitative Usability Testing Based on Eye Fixation-Related Potentials

  • Kimihiro YamanakaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 850)


To propose a quantitative usability testing index for each step of information processing, we measured eye fixation-related potentials (EFRPs) under the condition simulating touch panel operation. A characteristic of EFRPs is that conventional usability testing or other special testing is unnecessary because eye fixation can be used as a trigger. In this study, there were two kinds of tasks such as visual cognition and search. In visual cognition tasks, after addition and subtraction, the participant input the answer by selecting orderly number corresponding to the numerical answer displayed on the monitor. In visual search tasks, a number selected randomly was displayed on the monitor, and the participant answered the question by searching the same number out of numbers arranged randomly on the monitor. And then, EFRPs were measured to estimate cognitive load for task-related information processing. EFRP data were compared with data from a usability questionnaire, revealing that EFRPs enable the quantification of cognitive load.


Quantitative usability testing index Physiological signal Eye movement Eye Fixation-Related Potentials (EFRPs) 


  1. 1.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of Usability Testing, p. 348. Wiley Publishing Inc., Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson, Jr., R. (ed.): Event-Related Brain Potentials and Cognition (Oxford Psychology Series), p. 237. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papanicolaou, A.C. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Functional Brain Imaging in Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neurosciences (Oxford Library of Psychology), p. 397. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devillez, H., Guyader, N., Guérin-Dugué, A.: An eye fixation–related potentials analysis of the P300 potential for fixations onto a target object when exploring natural scenes. J. Vis. 15(3), 20 (2015). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Libenson, M.H.: Practical Approach to Electroencephalography, p. 464. Saunders, Philadelphia (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., Chute, R.: A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE 4(6), e6022 (2009). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lara, V., Marcuse, M.D., Madeline, C., Fields, M.D., Yoo, J.J.: Rowan’s Primer of EEG, p. 216. Elsevier, Edinburgh (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intelligence and InformaticsKonan UniversityKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations