Monthly Archives: December 2013

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION, PART 1

Posted on by

Human-Computer Interaction… I thought this blog was about psychology?

Over the course of a typical day, how often do you interact with computers? How are you reading this post? You might be reading this blog on your tablet, music playing through headphones connected to the smartphone in your pocket, as you sit on a computer-controlled train headed to school. Once there, you might sit in a computer lab to access a web-based library information system to find research for your final presentation. Perhaps you scanned a monthly pass to activate the turnstile and board the train for your commute? Maybe you printed several journal articles from an online database, or photocopied a chapter from a book to reference later for your research paper?

In a typical day, many devices require some form of interaction from the user in order to help carry out desired tasks; whether swiping an access card, pressing an icon on a touchscreen, pushing a button on a copier, or moving a pointing device across a screen. Ideally these devices perform their functions effectively and with ease for the user. But how many times have you sit in front of a screen—a computer, a copier, your phone—annoyed and frustrated? More often than not, users have problems understanding and operating these devices, making tasks undesirable, or perhaps impossible. The more complex the task, the more complex the system. The more complex the system, the greater need to focus on user interaction.

The field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) focuses on improving the usability of systems and applications though analysis and design [1].  But what does HCI have to do with psychology?

The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction

HCI is an interdisciplinary field involving the study, design, planning, evaluation, and implementation of interactive computer systems[2]; it is an intersection of technology, computer science, information systems, graphic and industrial design, human factors, sociology, behavioral science and cognitive psychology[3].  HCI applies aspects of each field to the entire system: the device, the interface, the context and the user.

An important aspect of HCI considers the potential behavior of user, and covers many aspects of cognition. HCI attempts to optimizes the relationship between user interpretations and the intent of the design and functions of the interface. The field attempts to minimize incorrect interpretations, and ease interaction though the analysis of a user’s perceptions, attention, memory, learning process, communications, problem solving and decision making. These are interdependent processes. Related cognitive research and knowledge has helped guide the design of computers and their interfaces in numerous ways[2].  Exploring these different processes will help to paint a picture of how they influence HCI.

PERCEPTION

Perception is the way in which a person interprets and understands their environment through sensory information (vision, audition, touch, etc.). Perception allows a user to see, hear, and feel when using computer interfaces. In addition, how we intend information to be perceived by a user is affected the way in which it’s presented: typography, legibility, color, pattern, objects, proximity, similarity, grouping, etc. augment the users perception. Color, for example, can convey to a user to take caution, or that action is needed – typically, green denotes that all things are fine or to proceed, yellow means to be careful or cautious, and red generally means stop or danger[2].

ATTENTION

Attention allows a person to selectively concentrate and focus on important, relevant information in their environment. Attention assists in information gathering, forming a goal(s), and completing tasks. In HCI, a system’s presentation of information has a direct impact on the attention of the user. For example, structured interfaces with meaningful, ordered layouts allow a user to process information better. The use of color, size, position, and ordering of items can draw the users attention to where it is, or isn’t, needed most. In turn these choices can help reduce operating mistakes and assist the user in performing their tasks[2].

MEMORY

Research into short-term (STM) and long-term (LTM) memory reveals how information is retained and recalled. In general, people are much better at recognition than recall; recall is often limited and far from precise. STM is easy to recall, but temporary and limited, near-present memory. With minimal effort, a person remember tasks, names, faces, and numbers, but can just as easily be forgotten. LTM stores memories and interpretations of the past, such as knowledge, experiences, and feelings. It has a larger capacity for retention, but storing and retrieval requires more exertion[4].

STM and LTM can affect the interaction between a user and computer. Overloading a users’ memory with complicated procedures may, for example, store an unpleasant experience with a particular interface in the users’ LTM. The memory of the experience can create a preconception of that system, and an adversity with its use. STM, for example, may store a recent system alert that was brief and not repeated, but can be easily forgotten if the user is preoccupied with another task.

…

TUNE-IN Next Week for Part 2, to find out how understanding Learning, Communication, & Problem Solving influences HCI, and the overall impact of psychology on interface design!

1 Newell, A., & Card, S. (1985). The Prospects For Psychological Science In Human-Computer Interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 209-242. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0103_1

2 Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons.

3 Jacko, J. A., & Sears, A. (2003). Human-computer interaction. Fundamentals. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

4 Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

Send to Kindle

SUBJECTIVITY OF TIME PERCEPTION

Posted on by

People often acknowledge perceiving time differently across various situations. Common expressions acknowledge some of these experiences. “A watched pot never boils,” reflects upon time slowing down due to anticipation or perhaps increased attentiveness. “Time flies when you are having fun,” reveals the common experience of time speeding up during relaxed and entertaining activities.

But does time perception actually change across different experiences, or do people simply recall these experiences differently? Previous studies have examined how people perceive time across various experiences. Mostly, research has focused on perceived time duration during life-threatening situations; specifically the feeling that time slows to a near halt when a person experiences a perceived threat (Droit-Volet, Brunot, and Niedenthal, 2004)[1].

A new study focused on a divergent experience, attraction. Joana Arantes, a psychologist at the University of Canterbury, looked at the popular belief of “time seem[ing] to slow down, or stop, when [a person] falls in love at first sight.” The idiom, common in film and fiction, may provide an evolutionary advantage for reproduction by creating a more intense recall of an attractive individuals, representing reproductive fitness—or perhaps the experience might provide the observer with more information from which to make a decision.

TIME DURATION AND LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT

The Scalar Expectancy Theory[2] is the leading explanation accommodating for the difference between perceived and actual time. Scalar timing bases perceptions of time on internal mechanisms, a pacemaker-accumulator system. When a person is aroused, such as in life-threatening situations, time seems to slow down because the pacemaker rate increases due to increased awareness and assessment of environmental stimuli. Dr. Arantes believes the timing system may have evolved to enhance reproductive success, and not just to prepare an individual for defensive actions. Her study specifically looked at how women estimate time after viewing an attractive man.

Gabor Disc

A Gabor disc, the neutral stimulus.

The study included twenty-seven female participants. During the experiment, participants were presented with five stimuli. The first four stimuli were considered neutral stimuli, a picture of Gabor discs. Each participant was expected to reproduce the duration of the fifth stimulus, during two two blocks of a 105 trials. In one block, the fifth stimulus could either be another neutral stimulus, a picture of an attractive male, a picture of an unattractive male. In the other block, the fifth stimulus could either be neutral, a picture of an attractive female, or a picture of an unattractive female.  Time duration estimates were measured across the three different conditions for each block. There were seven different stimulus durations, and each condition was measured five times for each duration.

This study seems to confirm the idea that time slows down “with love at first sight.” The perceived time duration significantly increased when the participants were presented with an attractive male stimulus, over all other conditions. The differences between female photos varied only slightly, but did show an overall increased duration over the neutral stimulus

QUESTIONS

Dr. Arantes suggests that reproductive fitness, represented by a photo of an attractive member of the opposite sex, increases arousal, and therefore perceived time. While the methodology presents a strong case for Dr. Arantes’s results, several questions.

  • It is unclear whether the participants found the pictures attractive or unattractive. The pictures were taken from internet sources and rated by 8 female raters. Attractive photos were of models and actors, while unattractive photos were taken from blogs and non-professional websites. Other (biometric?) measures might determine variations of attractiveness, such as observed pupil dilation, or other somatic responses.[3]
  • The study does not clearly relate attractiveness to mate selection, or how it might differ between genders.
  • Will the effects replicate with male participants?
  • What about persons with different sexual orientations? If they experience a similar effect with same-sex individuals, does this alter the idea that arousal and time duration relates to reproductive strengths?
  • How do increased time durations affect reproductive selection?

Dr. Arantes presents a strong, well-constructed case for her theories, but further evidence is needed to determine just how and why (or if) time perception influences “love at first sight.” She has received significant funding to follow up on her initial findings[4]. This funding will hopefully provide Dr. Arantes the opportunity to expand her original research and explore some of the questions propagated by the original study.

 

[1] Droit-Volet, S., Brunot, S., & Niedenthal, P. M. (2004). Perception of duration of emotional events. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 849.

[3] Hamann, S., Herman, R. A., Nolan, C. L., & Wallen, K. (2004). Men and women differe in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 7(1), 411.

[4] Scoop Media (2013, November 3) UC psychology expoert studying origins of attraction. Scoop Independent News. Retrieved from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1311/S00019/uc-psychology-expert-studying-origins-of-attraction.htm

Send to Kindle