Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
The effects of relevance of on-screen information on gaze behaviour and communication in 3-party groups Emma L Clayes University of Glasgow Supervisor: Prof. Anne Anderson Co-Supervisor: Jim Mullin BT Supervisor: Dr. David Hands Sponsored by UK ESRC and BT
Outline • Background & Hypotheses • Design and Method • Results • Summary • Future work • Conclusion
Representations: form and location • Many studies concerning mediated communication (Finn et al, 1997) with different technologies, measures and tasks • Little research on the impact of different representations (e.g Sellen, 1995; Parise et al, 1996)
Representations and relevance • How does the form and location of representations impact on gaze and communication? • How does this interact with the relevance of on screen information ( e.g. task related information and representations in terms of the task role)
Evaluation techniques in CMC • Many different measures used to examine computer mediated communication (e.g. dialogue analysis, task performance, questionnaires) • Additional factors (e.g. task, no of participants, technology) and different methods have led to conflicting results
Methodological issues • Three-party groups • Problem solving and social tasks • Communication analysis, questionnaire responses and task performance • Eye-tracking as an evaluation technique
Eye-tracking in Psychology and HCI • Well established measure of human information processing (Rayner, 1998) • Eye-gaze computer interfaces (Jacob, 1991) • Recent studies examining gaze and CMC-Velichkovsky et al (1997), Mullin et al (2001)
Communication and Attention • Eye-tracking as an evaluation technique: What do users attend to when using remote communication systems? • Does the relevance of on screen information impact on gaze behaviour? • Are patterns of gaze related to patterns of interaction within the group?
Eye-tracking in CMC • Exploratory questions: • Is it possible to obtain significant amounts of eye data during a non-restricted interaction? • Are participants consistent in their patterns of gaze across a screen? • Are these patterns meaningful?
Communication and Relevance • Relevance of on screen information (e.g. video data and video links) • Shared visual data more useful than video conference links (Daly-Jones et al 1998)
Communication and Relevance • Relevance of other collaborators (e.g. task role and status) • Status effects in mediated communication (Dubrovsky et al 1991, France et al, 2000)
Study 1 • What on-screen features attract most gaze? • Does the position of representations on screen impact on mediated communication? • Does this interact with the type of task and relevance of information presented on screen?
Task 1-Problem-solving task • Map task-collaborative problem-solving task • Two Instruction Givers (IG1 and IG2) have to instruct one other person (Instruction follower-IF) on how to draw a route on their map • Therefore, relationship between IG and IF more relevant to task success than IG1 and IG2
Task 1-Hypothesis I • Hypothesis I- Users will gaze more often at shared visual data ( i.e. the map) than video links of remote collaborators
Task 1-Hypothesis II • Do participants look equally often at the IF and IG video images? • Does the location of the video image affect gaze behaviour?
Task 1-Hypothesis III • Do patterns of gaze reflect patterns of interaction within the group? • I.e. Do participants talk more often to the person they look most often at?
Design 2 factor mixed design • Relevance (map, video-IF, video-IG) within subjects • Location (video-IF top, video-IF bottom) between subjects
Method • Subjects- 10 groups of 3, 20 eye-tracked • 2 maps, order of maps and location of IF video balanced • 3 participants in different rooms-high quality audio and video links- • Eye tracked participant always an IG
Results • Screen divided into areas of interest for eye gaze analysis • Percentage analysis on different areas of interest and different fixations
Results-Hypothesis I • Participants spent significantly more time looking at the map (72.4%) than video image of IF (12%) and IG (10%) • Relevance of on-screen information impacts on gaze behaviour F(2,36)=258.15, p<.001
Results-Hypothesis II • Do participants look more often at IF compared to IG and is this affected by location? • Main effect of relevance (IF 12%, IG 10%) p<.05 • No effect of location p>.05.
Results-Hypothesis II • Significant interaction between relevance of video image and location of video image F(1,18)=5.73,p<.05 • Participants looked more often at the instruction follower - only significant when the IF video was located in the top left of the screen (F=10.48, p<.05)
Results-Hypothesis III • Do patterns of gaze reflect patterns of interaction within the group? • Does the eye tracked participant direct more turns of speech to the IF or IG? • Turn combination analysis: IG1-IG2, IG1-IF • No effects of relevance (task role-IG2/IF), location of IF or an interaction between the two.
Task 1-Summary • Users look more often at shared visual data (map 72.4%) than video images (22%) • Users gaze more often at IF than IG-only significant when IF video is located in top left of screen
Task 1-Summary • Communication patterns reflect that IG directs almost equal number of turns to IG and IF- does not reflect patterns of gaze • Positional effect for salient video images?
Task 2-Relevance and Status • Realistic task-mediated business meeting • Two confederates- one high status (boss) and one low status (marketing assistant) • Video data presented not essential to complete task
Task 2-Relevance and Status • Hypothesis I- Do participants gaze more often at shared data compared to video images when the information is relevant, but not essential to complete the task.
Task 2-Relevance and Status • Hypothesis II- Do participants look more often at a high-status collaborator? • Does the location of the high status video image impact on gaze behaviour?
Task 2-Relevance and Status • Hypothesis III- do patterns of gaze reflect patterns of interaction within the group? • I.e do participants talk more often to the person they look most often at?
Task 2-Design 2 factor mixed design • Relevance (visual graphic, video-high status, video-low status) within subjects • Location (video-high status top, video-high status bottom) between subjects
Task 2-Method • 2 confederates, 20 eye-tracked participants • 3 participants in different rooms-high quality audio and video links
Results-Hypothesis I • Participants spent significantly less time looking at the low status video image (18%) than both the task feature (24.5%) and the high status video image (35%) • Relevance of on-screen information impacts on gaze behaviour (F(2, 36)=8.19, p<.05), no effect of location or an interaction.
Results-Hypothesis II • Do participants gaze more often at the high status confederate compared to the low status confederate and does this interact with the location of video images? • Only sig main effect of status F(1,18)=22.19,p<.05, no effect of location or an interaction • Participants gazed more often at the high status confederate (35%) compared to the low status confederate (24.5%)
Results-Hypothesis III • Do patterns of gaze reflect patterns of interaction within the group? • Do participants direct more turns of speech to the high status confederate compared to the low status confederate?
Results-Hypothesis III • Turn combination analysis: sig effect of status, no effect of location or an interaction • Participant directs more turns of speech to high status confederate and this reflects patterns of gaze
Task 2-Summary • Participants gaze less often at low status video compared to high status video and task feature • Participants gaze more often at high status video regardless of location • Interaction in Task 1 not replicated- video images attract more gaze and main effect of status found • Patterns of gaze reflect patterns of communication
Study 1-Summary • Participants gaze more often at shared data in task 1, not in task 2 • Significant interaction between location and relevance of video images in task 1, not in task 2 • Overwhelming impact of status on gaze and communication in task 2 • Communication patterns reflect patterns of gaze in Task 2, not Task 1
Study 1-Summary • Eye tracking provides valuable information about mediated interaction • Distribution of attention related to experimental task manipulations • Positional effect for salient video images?
Study 1-Eye-tracking in CMC • Exploratory questions about eye tracking answered • Data capture rate high –managed to track on average 70% of participants who took part • Average of 80% of fixations directed on screen during task • Patterns of gaze consistent and meaningful
Future Work • Same tasks, different design • Video images placed in 4 corners of the screen, therefore 4 conditions for each task • Task 1:Provisional results suggest interaction not replicated- always gaze more often at the map • Task 2:Difference in gaze distribution to videos smaller when video images are placed on same side of the screen than when they are placed on opposite sides of the screen
Conclusion • Eye tracking can be used successfully as an evaluation technique • Task differences and status effects robust- reflected in both patterns of gaze and communication • May be positional effect for salient video images?
Conclusion Implications for the design of remote communication systems • Context in which system is to be applied very important e.g. social or problem solving • Further research required on positional effects-may be used to enhance or reduce amount of gaze directed to representations