Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Analysis of Interaction Techniques in Touchscreen-Based Educational Gaming

Published 14 May 2024 in cs.HC | (2405.08906v5)

Abstract: Educational games enhance learning experiences by integrating touchscreens, making interactions more engaging and intuitive for learners. However, the cognitive impacts of educational game-play input modalities, such as the hand and stylus technique, are unclear. We compared the experience of using hands vs. a stylus for touchscreens while playing an educational game by analyzing oxygenated hemoglobin collected by functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and self-reported measures. In addition, we measured the hand vs. the stylus modalities of the task and calculated the relative neural efficiency and relative neural involvement using the mental demand and the quiz score. Our findings show that the hand condition had a significantly lower neural involvement, yet higher neural efficiency than the stylus condition. This result suggests the requirement of less cognitive effort while using the hand. Additionally, the self-reported measures show significant differences, and the results suggest that hand-based input is more intuitive, less cognitively demanding, and less frustrating. Conversely, the use of a stylus required higher cognitive effort due to the cognitive balance of controlling the pen and answering questions. These findings highlight the importance of designing educational games that allow learners to engage with the system while minimizing cognitive effort.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (52)
  1. User experience of a stylus pen that can provide the texture of pen and paper. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 30(2):71–82, 2019.
  2. Preschool children handwriting evaluation on paper-based and tablet-based settings. children, 17:18, 2014.
  3. H. Alsuradi and M. Eid. Eeg-based machine learning models to evaluate haptic delay: Should we label data based on self-reporting or physical stimulation? IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 16(4):524–529, 2023.
  4. Detection of tactile feedback on touch-screen devices using eeg data. In 2020 IEEE Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS), pp. 775–780, 2020.
  5. A. S. Arif and C. Sylla. A comparative evaluation of touch and pen gestures for adult and child users. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 392–395, 2013.
  6. Comparative study of various touchscreen technologies. International Journal of Computer Applications, 6(8):12–18, 2010.
  7. J. Brooke et al. Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194):4–7, 1996.
  8. A comparative evaluation of spatial targeting behaviour patterns for finger and stylus tapping on mobile touchscreen devices. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1(4), 2018.
  9. Sidesight: multi-” touch” interaction around small devices. In Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pp. 201–204, 2008.
  10. The hybrid stylus: a multi-surface active stylus for interacting with and handwriting on paper, tabletop display or both. Sensors, 22(18):7058, 2022.
  11. Towards neurohaptics: Brain-computer interfaces for decoding intuitive sense of touch. In 2021 9th International Winter Conference on Brain-Computer Interface (BCI), 2021.
  12. A. Colley and J. Häkkilä. Exploring finger specific touch screen interaction for mobile phone user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian computer-human interaction conference on designing futures: The future of design, pp. 539–548, 2014.
  13. L. Crescenzi-Lanna. Emotions, private speech, involvement and other aspects of young children’s interactions with educational apps. Computers in Human Behavior, 111:106430, 2020.
  14. Tactile sensing in human–computer interfaces: The inclusion of pressure sensitivity as a third dimension of user input. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 232:229–250, 2015.
  15. A. I. Elttayef. Future digital touch-based curricula: touch screen-based interaction and its educational impact on developing efl learners’ linguistic competence. British Journal of English Linguistics, 4(6):39–49, 2016.
  16. S. H. Fairclough. Fundamentals of physiological computing. Interacting with computers, 21(1-2):133–145, 2009.
  17. G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39(2):175–191, 2007.
  18. C. Forlines and R. Balakrishnan. Evaluating tactile feedback and direct vs. indirect stylus input in pointing and crossing selection tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1563–1572, 2008.
  19. Framework for electroencephalography-based evaluation of user experience. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 2283–2294. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016.
  20. Review of the use of electroencephalography as an evaluation method for human-computer interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.2222, 2013.
  21. N. Getchell and P. Shewokis. Understanding the role of cognitive effort within contextual interference paradigms: Theory, measurement, and tutorial. Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior, 17(1):59–69, 2023.
  22. S. Girard and H. Johnson. Educational software for children: analysis of interaction techniques for direct manipulation. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Association Francophone d’Interaction Homme-Machine, p. 259–262. Association for Computing Machinery, 2009.
  23. Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139–183. Elsevier, 1988.
  24. Features of digitally captured signatures vs. pen and paper signatures: Similar or completely different? Forensic Science International, 318:110587, 2021.
  25. Sensing techniques for tablet+ stylus interaction. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pp. 605–614, 2014.
  26. Pen+ touch= new tools. In Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pp. 27–36, 2010.
  27. H. Holz and D. Meurers. Interaction styles in context: comparing drag-and-drop, point-and-touch, and touch in a mobile spelling game. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(9):835–850, 2021.
  28. An investigation of finger versus stylus input in medical scenarios. In ITI 2008 - 30th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 433–438, 2008.
  29. K. Ikematsu and I. Siio. Ohmic-touch: extending touch interaction by indirect touch through resistive objects. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–8, 2018.
  30. Cognitive workload impacts of simulated visibility changes during search and surveillance tasks quantified by functional near infrared spectroscopy. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 52(4):658–667, 2022.
  31. The impact of fidget spinners on fine motor skills in individuals with and without adhd: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 12(3):82–101, 2022.
  32. A survey on measuring cognitive workload in human-computer interaction. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(13s):1–39, 2023.
  33. H. W. Lee. Does touch-based interaction in learning with interactive images improve students’ learning? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24:731–735, 2015.
  34. Usability analyses of finger motion in direct touch technology. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference of Modern Computer Science and Applications, pp. 663–667. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
  35. Illuminating the developing brain: the past, present and future of functional near infrared spectroscopy. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(3):269–284, 2010.
  36. Evaluation of accuracy: A comparative study between finger pointing and stylus pointing using mid-air input. In Intelligent Computing, pp. 34–51. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023.
  37. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1):1–4, 2003.
  38. A bermuda triangle? a review of method application and triangulation in user experience evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1–16, 2018.
  39. Cues: Cognitive usability evaluation system. EuroHCIR, 12:1–4, 2012.
  40. Hoverzoom: making on-screen keyboards more accessible. In CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1261–1266. 2014.
  41. Digital handwriting with a finger or a stylus: a biomechanical comparison. IEEE transactions on haptics, 8(4):356–370, 2015.
  42. Understanding hci practices and challenges of experiment reporting with brain signals: Towards reproducibility and reuse. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 29(4), 2022.
  43. Probabilistic palm rejection using spatiotemporal touch features and iterative classification. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2009–2012, 2014.
  44. Brain-in-the-loop learning using fnir and simulated virtual reality surgical tasks: hemodynamic and behavioral effects. In Foundations of Augmented Cognition: 9th International Conference, AC 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 2–7, 2015, Proceedings 9, pp. 324–335. Springer, 2015.
  45. S. Soliman and D. Nathan-Roberts. Evaluating children’s interaction with touchscreens from 0 to 8 years old. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol. 62, pp. 260–264. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2018.
  46. Grips and gestures on a multi-touch pen. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, pp. 1323–1332, 2011.
  47. A dynamic pen-based interface for writing and editing complex mathematical expressions with math boxes. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 6(2):1–25, 2016.
  48. Analysis of children’s handwriting on touchscreen phones. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, p. 171–174. Association for Computing Machinery, 2013.
  49. D. Vogel and P. Baudisch. Shift: a technique for operating pen-based interfaces using touch. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 657–666, 2007.
  50. M. Wang. Effects of touch-type online educational games on learners’ learning motivations. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 18(6):4, 2023.
  51. J. Xiong and S. Muraki. An ergonomics study of thumb movements on smartphone touch screen. Ergonomics, 57(6):943–955, 2014.
  52. Best practices for fnirs publications. Neurophotonics, 8(1):012101, 2021.
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up to Summarize

Whiteboard

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

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

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

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Continue Learning

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

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Collections

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

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 3 tweets with 1 like about this paper.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up for Free