research-article

Meeting the Expectations from Brain-Computer Interfaces

Authors:

Hayrettin Gürkök,

Anton NijholtAuthors Info & Claims

Computers in Entertainment (CIE), Volume 15, Issue 3

Article No.: 5, Pages 1 - 10

https://doi.org/10.1145/2633431

Published: 04 April 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are often evaluated in terms of performance and seldom for usability. However in some application domains, such as entertainment computing, user experience evaluation is vital. User experience evaluation in BCI systems, especially in entertainment applications such as games, can be biased due to the novelty of the interface. However, as the novelty will eventually vanish, what matters is the user experience related to the unique features offered by BCI. Therefore it is a viable approach to compare BCI to other novel modalities, such as a speech or motion recognizer, rather than the traditional mouse and keyboard. In the study that we present in this article, our participants played a computer game with a BCI and an automatic speech recognizer (ASR), and they rated their expectations and experiences for both modalities. Our analysis on subjective ratings revealed that both ASR and BCI were successful in satisfying participants' expectations in general. Participants found speech control easier to learn than BCI control. They indicated that BCI control induced more fatigue than they expected.

References

[1]

Jordi Bieger and Gary Garcia Molina. 2010. Light Stimulation Properties to Influence Brain Activity: A Brain-Computer Interface Application. Technical Report TN-2010-00315. Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

[2]

G. Edlinger, C. Holzner, C. Guger, C. Groenegress, and M. Slater. 2009. Brain-computer interfaces for goal orientated control of a virtual smart home environment. In Proceedings of the 4th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 463--465.

[3]

Hayrettin Gürkök, Gido Hakvoort, and Mannes Poel. 2011. Evaluating user experience with respect to user expectations in brain-computer interface games. In Proceedings of the 5th International BCI Conference. Verlag der TU Graz, Graz, Austria, 348--351.

[4]

Gido Hakvoort, Hayrettin Gürkök, Danny Plass-Oude Bos, Michel Obbink, and Mannes Poel. 2011. Measuring immersion and affect in a brain-computer interface game. In 13th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, INTERACT 2011. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 115--128.

[5]

Marc Hassenzahl. 2004. The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 31--42.

Digital Library

[6]

Jean-Paul Haton. 2005. Automatic speech recognition: A review. In Enterprise Information Systems V. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 6--11.

[7]

Christoph S. Herrmann. 2001. Human EEG responses to 1--100 Hz flicker: Resonance phenomena in visual cortex and their potential correlation to cognitive phenomena. Experimental Brain Research 137, 3--4 (2001), 346--353.

[8]

ISO 9241-11:1998. 1998. Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on Usability. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.

[9]

Herbert H. Jasper. 1958. Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography: 1957. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 10, 2 (1958), 370--375.

[10]

Ian McLoughlin and Hamid Reza Sharifzadeh. 2008. Speech recognition for smart homes. In Speech Recognition, Technologies and Applications. I-Tech, Vienna, Austria, 477--494.

[11]

Chang S. Nam, Yueqing Li, Yongwoong Jeon, Young-Joo Kim, and Hoon-Yong Yoon. 2009. Usability of the P300 speller: Towards a more sustainable brain-computer interface. e-Minds: International Journal on Human-Computer Interaction 1, 5 (2009).

[12]

Anton Nijholt, Boris Reuderink, and Danny Oude Bos. 2009. Turning shortcomings into challenges: Brain-computer interfaces for games. In Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 153--168.

[13]

Emanuele Pasqualotto, Alessandro Simonetta, Veronica Gnisci, Stefano Federici, and Marta Olivetti Belardinelli. 2011. Toward a usability evaluation of BCIs. International Journal of Bioelectromagnetism 13, 3 (2011), 121--122.

[14]

Alois Schlögl, Julien Kronegg, Jane E. Huggins, and Steve G. Mason. 2007. Evaluation criteria for BCI research. In Toward Brain-Computer Interfacing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 327--342.

[15]

Desney Tan and Anton Nijholt (Eds.). 2010. Brain-Computer Interfaces: Applying our Minds to Human-Computer Interaction. Springer-Verlag, London, UK.

[16]

Markku Turunen, Jaakko Hakulinen, Aleksi Melto, Tomi Heimonen, Tuuli Laivo, and Juho Hella. 2009. SUXES - user experience evaluation method for spoken and multimodal interaction. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. ISCA, 2567--2570.

[17]

Markku Turunen, Hannu Soronen, Santtu Pakarinen, Juho Hella, Tuuli Laivo, Jaakko Hakulinen, Aleksi Melto, Juha-Pekka Rajaniemi, Erno Mäkinen, Tomi Heimonen, Jussi Rantala, Pellervo Valkama, Toni Miettinen, and Roope Raisamo. 2010. Accessible multimodal media center application for blind and partially sighted people. Computers in Entertainment 8, 3 (2010), 16.

Digital Library

[18]

Ina Wechsung and Anja Naumann. 2008. Evaluation methods for multimodal systems: A comparison of standardized usability questionnaires. In Perception in Multimodal Dialogue Systems. Springer, Berlin, 276--284.

Digital Library

Cited By

Auda JGruenefeld UKosch TSchneegass S(2022)The Butterfly Effect: Novel Opportunities for Steady-State Visually-Evoked Potential Stimuli in Virtual RealityProceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 202210.1145/3519391.3519397(254-266)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3519391.3519397
Daly IMatran-Fernandez AValeriani DLebedev MKübler A(2021)Editorial: Datasets for Brain-Computer Interface ApplicationsFrontiers in Neuroscience10.3389/fnins.2021.73216515Online publication date: 29-Sep-2021
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.732165
Guerino GValentim NCavalcante EDantas FBatista T(2020)Usability and User eXperience Evaluation of Conversational SystemsProceedings of the XXXIV Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering10.1145/3422392.3422421(427-436)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3422392.3422421
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Meeting the Expectations from Brain-Computer Interfaces
1. Hardware
  1. Communication hardware, interfaces and storage
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)

Recommendations

User expectations and experiences of a speech and thought controlled computer game
ACE '11: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are often evaluated in terms of performance and seldom for usability. However in some application domains, such as entertainment computing, user experience evaluation is vital. User experience evaluation in BCI systems, ...
Evaluating user experience in a selection based brain-computer interface game a comparative study: a comparative study
ICEC'11: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Entertainment Computing

In human-computer interaction, it is important to offer the users correct modalities for particular tasks and situations. Unless the user has the suitable modality for a task, neither task performance nor user experience can be optimised. The aim of ...
Brain-computer interface research at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
ISABEL '11: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Applied Sciences in Biomedical and Communication Technologies

We present an overview of our Brain-computer interface (BCI) research, invasive as well as non-invasive, during the past four years. The invasive BCIs are based on local field-and action potentials recorded with microelectrode arrays implanted in the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computers in Entertainment

Computers in Entertainment Volume 15, Issue 3

Theoretical and Practical Computer Applications in Entertainment

Fall 2017

85 pages

EISSN:1544-3574

DOI:10.1145/3044431

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2017 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 April 2017

Accepted: 01 August 2012

Revised: 01 July 2012

Received: 01 June 2012

Published in CIE Volume 15, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

BrainGain Smart Mix Programme of the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
290
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)6
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 05 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Auda JGruenefeld UKosch TSchneegass S(2022)The Butterfly Effect: Novel Opportunities for Steady-State Visually-Evoked Potential Stimuli in Virtual RealityProceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 202210.1145/3519391.3519397(254-266)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3519391.3519397
Daly IMatran-Fernandez AValeriani DLebedev MKübler A(2021)Editorial: Datasets for Brain-Computer Interface ApplicationsFrontiers in Neuroscience10.3389/fnins.2021.73216515Online publication date: 29-Sep-2021
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.732165
Guerino GValentim NCavalcante EDantas FBatista T(2020)Usability and User eXperience Evaluation of Conversational SystemsProceedings of the XXXIV Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering10.1145/3422392.3422421(427-436)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3422392.3422421
Müller-Putz G(2020)ElectroencephalographyBrain-Computer Interfaces10.1016/B978-0-444-63934-9.00018-4(249-262)Online publication date: 2020
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63934-9.00018-4

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents