Advertisement

Subjective User Experience and Performance with Active Tangibles on a Tabletop Interface

  • Jan B.F. van ErpEmail author
  • Alexander Toet
  • Koos Meijer
  • Joris Janssen
  • Arnoud de Jong
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9189)

Abstract

We developed active tangibles (Sensators) that can be used in combination with multitouch tabletops and that can provide multisensory (visual, auditory, and vibrotactile) feedback. For spatial alignment and rotation tasks we measured subjective user experience and objective performance with these Sensators. We found that active feedback increased accuracy in both tasks, for all feedback modalities. Active visual feedback yielded the highest overall subjective user experience and preference scores. Our contribution is that active feedback improves subjectively perceived performance and reduces perceived mental workload. Additionally, our findings indicate that users prefer to be guided by visual signs over auditory and vibrotactile signs.

Keywords

Tangible interfaces User experience Tabletop Multimodal Active feedback 

References

  1. 1.
    Underkoffler, J., Ishii, H.: Urp: a luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design. In: Proceedings of the CHI 1999, pp. 386–393. ACM Press (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fitzmaurice, G.W., Buxton, W.A.S.: An empirical evaluation of graspable user interfaces: towards specialized, space-multiplexed input. In: Proceedings of the CHI 1997, pp. 43–50. ACM Press (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fitzmaurice, G.W., Ishii, H., Buxton, W.A.S.: Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the CHI 1995, pp. 442–449. ACM Press (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hurtienne, J., Stößel, C., Weber, K.: Sad is heavy and happy is light: population stereotypes of tangible object attributes. In: Proceedings of the TEI 2009, pp. 61–68. ACM Press (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tuddenham, P., Kirk, D., Izadi, S.: Graspables revisited: multitouch vs. tangible input for tabletop displays in acquisition and manipulation tasks. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2010, pp. 2223–2232. ACM Press (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weiss, M., Hollan, J.D., Borchers, J.: Augmenting interactive tabletops with translucent tangible controls. In: Müller-Tomfelde, C. (ed.) Tabletops – Horizontal Interactive Displays, pp. 149–170. Springer, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, J.-H., Spence, C.: Assessing the benefits of multimodal feedback on dual-task performance under demanding conditions. In: Proceedings of the BCS-HCI 2008, vol. 1, pp. 185–192. British Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewster, S., King, A.: An investigation into the use of tactons to present progress information. In: Costabile, M.F., Paternó, F. (eds.) INTERACT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3585, pp. 6–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Veen, H.A.H.C., van Erp, J.B.: Tactile information presentation in the cockpit. In: Brewster, S., Murray-Smith, R. (eds.) Haptic HCI 2000. LNCS, vol. 2058, pp. 174–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prewett, M.S., Elliott, L.R., Walvoord, A.G., Coovert, M.D.: A meta-analysis of vibrotactile and visual information displays for improving task performance. IEEE Trans. SMC-C 42(1), 123–132 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang, Y.Y., Moll, J., Sallnäs, E.L., Sundblad, Y.: Auditory feedback in haptic collaborative interfaces. Int. J. Hum. -Comp. Stud. 70(4), 257–270 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wickens, C.D.: Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 3, 159–177 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Erp, J.B.F., Werkhoven, P.: Validation of principles for tactile navigation displays. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 1687–1691. SAGE Publications (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elliott, L.R., Van Erp, J.B.F., Redden, E.S., Duistermaat, M.: Field based validation of a tactile navigation device. IEEE Trans. Haptics 3(2), 78–87 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ressler, S., Antonishek, B., Wang, Q., Godil, A.: Integrating active tangible devices with a synthetic environment for collaborative engineering. In: Proceedings of the Web3D 2001, pp. 93–100. ACM Press (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richter, J., Thomas, B.H., Sugimoto, M., Inami, M.: Remote active tangible interactions. In: Proceedings of the TEI 2007, pp. 39–42. ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brave, S., Ishii, H., Dahley, A.: Tangible interfaces for remote collaboration and communication. In: Proceedings of the CSCW 1998, pp. 169–178. ACM Press (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenfeld, D., Zawadzki, M., Sudol, J., Perlin, K.: Physical objects as bidirectional user interface elements. IEEE CGA 24(1), 44–49 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kubicki, S., Lebrun, Y., Lepreux, S., Adam, E., Kolski, C., Mandiau, R.: Simulation in contexts involving an interactive table and tangible objects. Sim. Mod. Pract. Theory 31, 116–131 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lepreux, S., Kubicki, S., Kolski, C., Caelen, J.: From centralized interactive tabletops to distributed surfaces: The Tangiget concept. Int. J. Hum. -Comp. Interact. 28(11), 709–721 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Erp, J.B.F.: Guidelines for the use of vibro-tactile displays in human computer interaction. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics, pp. 18–22 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nesbitt, K.: Designing multi-sensory displays for abstract data (Ph.D. Thesis). 2003. Sydney, Australia, School of Information Technologies, University of Sydney (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., Wolf, P.: Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20(1), 21–53 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Erp, J.B.F., Kooi, F.L., Bronkhorst, A.W., van Leeuwen, D.L., van Esch, M.P., van Wijngaarden, S.J.: Multimodal interfaces: a framework based on modality appropriateness. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 1542–1546. SAGE Publications (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bianchi, A., Oakley, I., Lee, J.K., Kwon, D.S., Kostakos, V.: Haptics for tangible interaction: a vibro-tactile prototype. In: Proceedings of the TEI 2011, pp. 283–284. ACM Press (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, L., Cho, H., Park, S., Han, M.: A tangible user interface with multimodal feedback. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4552, pp. 94–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nowacka, D., Ladha, K., Hammerla, N.Y., Jackson, D., Ladha, C., Rukzio, E., Olivier, P.: Touchbugs: actuated tangibles on multitouch tables. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2013, pp. 759–762. ACM Press, (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Riedenklau, E., Hermann, T., Ritter, H.: An integrated multi-modal actuated tangible user interface for distributed collaborative planning. In: Proceedings of the TEI 2012, pp. 169–174. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Riedenklau, E., Hermann, T., Ritter, H.: Tangible active objects and interactive sonification as a scatter plot alternative for the visually impaired. In: Proceedings of the ICAD-2010, pp. 1–7. ACM Press (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patten, J., Ishii, H.: Mechanical constraints as computational constraints in tabletop tangible interfaces. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2007, pp. 809–818. ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pedersen, E.W., Hornbæk,K.: Tangible bots: Interaction with active tangibles in tabletop interfaces. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 2975–2984. ACM Press (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Erp, J.B.F., Toet, A., Janssen, J.: Uni-, bi- and tri-modal warning signals: effects of temporal parameters and sensory modality on perceived urgency. Saf. Sci. 72, 1–8 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hart, S.G.: Nasa-Task Load Index (Nasa-TLX); 20 Years Later. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Ergonomics Society. Annual Meeting, HFES, pp. 904–908 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., Norman, K.L.: Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: Proceedings of the CHI 1988, pp. 213–218. ACM Press (1988)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harper, B.D., Norman, K.L.: Improving user satisfaction: The questionnaire for user interaction satisfaction version 5.5. In: Proceedings of the First Annual Mid-Atlantic Human Factors Conference, pp. 224–228 (1993)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Slaughter, L.A., Harper, B.D., Norman, K.L.: Assessing the equivalence of paper and on-line versions of the QUIS 5.5. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Mid-Atlantic Human Factors Conference, pp. 87–91 (1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 284(23), 3043–3045 (2000)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G.: Engineering psychology and human performance, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan B.F. van Erp
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alexander Toet
    • 1
  • Koos Meijer
    • 1
  • Joris Janssen
    • 1
  • Arnoud de Jong
    • 1
  1. 1.TNO Human FactorsSoesterbergThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations