Evaluating User Experience in a Selection Based Brain-Computer Interface Game A Comparative Study

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 this study is to assess the appropriateness of using a steady-state visually evoked potential based brain-computer interface (BCI) for selection tasks in a computer game. In an experiment participants evaluated a BCI control and a comparable automatic speech recogniser (ASR) control in terms of workload, usability and engagement. The results showed that although BCI was a satisfactory modality in completing selection tasks, its use in our game was not engaging for the player. In our particular setup, ASR control appeared to be a better alternative to BCI control.

[1]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[2]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[3]  C. Herrmann.  Human EEG responses to 1–100 Hz flicker: resonance phenomena in visual cortex and their potential correlation to cognitive phenomena , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  Michael Burmester,et al.  AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität , 2003, MuC.

[5]  Ina Wechsung,et al.  Evaluation Methods for Multimodal Systems: A Comparison of Standardized Usability Questionnaires , 2008, PIT.

[6]  Luca Citi,et al.  Defining brain–machine interface applications by matching interface performance with device requirements , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[7]  Elisabeth André,et al.  Perception in Multimodal Dialogue Systems, 4th IEEE Tutorial and Research Workshop on Perception and Interactive Technologies for Speech-Based Systems, PIT 2008, Kloster Irsee, Germany, June 16-18, 2008, Proceedings , 2008, PIT.

[8]  Christa Neuper,et al.  Rehabilitation with Brain-Computer Interface Systems , 2008, Computer.

[9]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  Turning Shortcomings into Challenges: Brain-Computer Interfaces for Games , 2009, INTETAIN.

[10]  Jeanne H. Brockmyer,et al.  The Development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A Measure of Engagement in Video Game Playing: Response to Reviews , 2009, Interacting with computers.

[11]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  Turning Shortcomings into Challenges: Brain-Computer Interfaces for Games , 2009, INTETAIN.

[12]  Dirk Heylen,et al.  Evaluating User Experience of Actual and Imagined Movement in BCI Gaming , 2010, Int. J. Gaming Comput. Mediat. Simulations.

[13]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  The Inference of Perceived Usability From Beauty , 2010, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[14]  Dirk Heylen,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfacing and Games , 2010, Brain-Computer Interfaces.

[15]  J. Bieger,et al.  Light Stimulation Properties to Influence Brain Activity: A Brain-CoMputer Interface application , 2010 .

[16]  Mel Slater,et al.  Effects of P300-Based BCI Use on Reported Presence in a Virtual Environment , 2010, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[17]  Desney S. Tan,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces: Applying our Minds to Human-Computer Interaction , 2010 .

[18]  Constantine Stephanidis,et al.  Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction , 2011 .

[19]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  Biofeedback game design: using direct and indirect physiological control to enhance game interaction , 2011, CHI.

[20]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  Perspectives on User Experience Evaluation of Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2011, HCI.

[21]  Thorsten O. Zander,et al.  Combining Eye Gaze Input With a Brain–Computer Interface for Touchless Human–Computer Interaction , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[22]  Stefano Federici,et al.  Toward a Usability Evaluation of BCIs , 2011 .

[23]  F Cincotti,et al.  Workload measurement in a communication application operated through a P300-based brain–computer interface , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.