Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

How Participants Respond to Computer Delays

Published 8 Jan 2024 in cs.HC | (2401.03751v1)

Abstract: Reaction time studies with computers investigate how and how quickly participants respond to changing sensory input. They promise simple and precise measurement of time and inputs and offer interesting insights into human behavior. However, several previous studies have discovered imprecisions in timing appearing as delays, depending on the browser, software and programming used for conducting such studies. Since the accuaracy of the collected data is widely discussed, we aim to provide new results on the effect of unintended delays on participants' behavior. For this purpose, a new reaction time study was conducted. Computer delays were added to the experiment to investigate their effects on participants' performance and repulsion. Minimal changes in participants' behavior did occur and should be furtherly investigated, as the power of this study was rather low and might not have uncovered all underlying effects. The following report details our study design and results and offers several suggestions for improvements in further studies.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (52)
  1. The many faces of information technology interruptions: a taxonomy and preliminary investigation of their performance effects. Information System Journals, 25:231–273.
  2. Realistic precision and accuracy of online experiment platforms, web browsers, and devices. Behavior Research Methods, 53.
  3. System Response Time and Problem Solving Behavior. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 25(1):749–753.
  4. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  5. The timing mega-study: comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. Brain, Cognition and Mental Health. PeerJ 8:e9414.
  6. Butler, T. W. (1983). Computer response time and user performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 58–62.
  7. The LINC: A Description of the laboratory instrument Computer. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 115(2):653–668.
  8. Negligible Sex Differences in General Intelligence. Intelligence, 28(1):57–68.
  9. Cowan, N. (2008). Progress in Brain Research, volume 169, chapter What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory?, pages 323–338. Elsevier.
  10. Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research. PLOS Online, 8(3):1–18.
  11. Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment. Behavior Research Methods, 40:428–434.
  12. Humans perceive flicker artifacts at 500 Hz. Scientific Reports, 5(1).
  13. Psychophysics in a Web browser? Comparing response times collected with JavaScript and Psychophysics Toolbox in a visual search task. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1):1–12.
  14. Gender Differences in Emotional Response: Inconsistency between Experience and Expressivity. PLoS ONE, 11(6).
  15. Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson Education, 3 edition.
  16. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41:1149–1160.
  17. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39:175–191.
  18. Age Differences and Changes in Reaction Time: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Journal of Gerontology: PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 49(4):179–189.
  19. Reaction time and onset of psychological distress: the UK Health and Lifestyle Survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70:813–817.
  20. Web Site Delays: How Tolerant are Users? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(1):1–28.
  21. Grace-Martin, K. (2020). When Unequal Sample Sizes Are and Are NOT a Problem in ANOVA.
  22. Hilbig, B. E. (2016). Reaction time effects in lab- versus Web-based research: Experimental evidence. 48, 48:1718–1724.
  23. Methodological Problems With Online Concussion Testing. frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14. Art. Number: 509091.
  24. Howell, B. (n.D.). Why do participants drop out of online surveys and experiments?
  25. Variability in Reaction Time Performance of Younger and Older Adults. The Journals of Gerontology, 57(2):101–115.
  26. The Mind and Brain of Short-Term Memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59:193–224.
  27. Gender differences in cognitive abilities: The mediating role of health state and health habits. Intelligence, 32(1):7–23.
  28. Crowdsourcing performance evaluations of user interfaces. In CHI ’13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 207–216.
  29. Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance. Acta Psychologica, 133(1):64–72.
  30. Non-binary/Genderqueer Identities: a Critical Review of the Literature. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9(3):116–120.
  31. Miller, R. B. (1968). Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. In AFIPS ’68 (Fall, part I), volume 1 of AFIPS ’68, pages 267–277.
  32. Response time accuracy in Apple Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, 43. Art. Number 353.
  33. On the perceptual generality of the unit-decade compatibility effect. Experimental Psychology, 51(1):72–79.
  34. Oberbauer, K. (2009). Interference between storage and processing in working memory: Feature overwriting, not similarity-based competition. Memory and Cognition, 37(3):346–357.
  35. Physical or Virtual Presence of the Experimenter: Psychological Online-Experiments in Different Settings. International Journal of Internet Science, 1(1):71–81.
  36. Plant, R. R. (2016). A reminder on millisecond timing accuracy and potential replication failure in computer-based psychology experiments: An open letter. Behavior Research Methods, 48:408–411.
  37. Presentation and response timing accuracy in Adobe Flashand HTML5/JavaScript Web experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 47:309–327.
  38. Reips, U.-D. (2002). Internet-Based Psychological Experimenting: Five Dos and Five Don’ts. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3):241–249.
  39. Restle, F. (1970). Speed of adding and comparing numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83(2):274–278.
  40. The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science, 8(3):183–189.
  41. On the effects of continuous active work on performance. Acta Psychologica, 33:414–431.
  42. System response time and method of pay: Stress effects in computer-based tasks. International journal of human-computer interaction, 1(1):23–39.
  43. Interaction Interferences: Implications of Last-Instant System State Changes. In UIST ’20: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 516–528.
  44. Schmidt, W. C. (2001). Presentation accuracy of Web animation methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33:187–200.
  45. Poweranalyse und optimaler Stichprobenumfang – Eine Einführung / Power analysis and optimal sample size – An introduction. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Akupunktur, 47(1):50–51.
  46. Shneiderman, B. (1984). Response time and display rate in human performance with computers. ACM Computing Surveys, 16(3):265–285.
  47. Behavioral and emotional consequences of brief delays in human–computer interaction. International journal of human-computer studies, 67(7):561–570.
  48. Gender Differences in Cognitive Abilites. Current Research in Psychology, 3. Article Number: 41219.
  49. Age and gender differences in negative affect—Is there a role for emotion regulation? Personality and Individual Differences, 38(8):1935–1946.
  50. Troyer, A. K. (2011). Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology, chapter Serial Position Effect, page 166. Positionseffekt.
  51. Whelan, R. (2008). Effective analysis of reaction time data. The Psychological Record volume, 58:475–482.
  52. Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(131):1–12.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up