Delays in Human-Computer Interaction and Their Effects on Brain Activity

The temporal contingency of feedback is an essential requirement of successful human-computer interactions. The timing of feedback not only affects the behavior of a user but is also accompanied by changes in psychophysiology and neural activity. In three fMRI experiments we systematically studied the impact of delayed feedback on brain activity while subjects performed an auditory categorization task. In the first fMRI experiment, we analyzed the effects of rare and thus unexpected delays of different delay duration on brain activity. In the second experiment, we investigated if users can adapt to frequent delays. Therefore, delays were presented as often as immediate feedback. In a third experiment, the influence of interaction outage was analyzed by measuring the effect of infrequent omissions of feedback on brain activity. The results show that unexpected delays in feedback presentation compared to immediate feedback stronger activate inter alia bilateral the anterior insular cortex, the posterior medial frontal cortex, the left inferior parietal lobule and the right inferior frontal junction. The strength of this activation increases with the duration of the delay. Thus, delays interrupt the course of an interaction and trigger an orienting response that in turn activates brain regions of action control. If delays occur frequently, users can adapt, delays become expectable, and the brain activity in the observed network diminishes over the course of the interaction. However, introducing rare omissions of expected feedback reduces the system’s trustworthiness which leads to an increase in brain activity not only in response to such omissions but also following frequently occurring and thus expected delays.

[1]  John J. Foxe,et al.  The role of cingulate cortex in the detection of errors with and without awareness: a high‐density electrical mapping study , 2007, The European journal of neuroscience.

[2]  Stefan Pollmann,et al.  Striatal activations signal prediction errors on confidence in the absence of external feedback , 2012, NeuroImage.

[3]  Jian Zhu,et al.  Temporal prediction errors modulate cingulate–insular coupling , 2013, NeuroImage.

[4]  Ethan V. Munson,et al.  40 Years of Searching for the Best Computer System Response Time , 2011, Interact. Comput..

[5]  Simon B. Eickhoff,et al.  Effects of timing and movement uncertainty implicate the temporo-parietal junction in the prediction of forthcoming motor actions , 2009, NeuroImage.

[6]  Robert B. Miller,et al.  Response time in man-computer conversational transactions , 1899, AFIPS Fall Joint Computing Conference.

[7]  H. Critchley,et al.  Neural Activity Relating to Generation and Representation of Galvanic Skin Conductance Responses: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  J. Polich Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[9]  Joshua W. Brown,et al.  Medial prefrontal cortex as an action-outcome predictor , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[10]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex shows fMRI response to internal and external error signals , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  R. Barry,et al.  Linking components of event-related potentials and autonomic measures of the orienting reflex. , 2013, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[12]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction , 1998 .

[13]  M. Coles,et al.  On the programming and reprogramming of actions. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[14]  G L Shulman,et al.  INAUGURAL ARTICLE by a Recently Elected Academy Member:A default mode of brain function , 2001 .

[15]  A. Schulze-Bonhage,et al.  Functional organization of the human anterior insular cortex , 2009, Neuroscience Letters.

[16]  Joshua W. Brown,et al.  Medial prefrontal cortex predicts and evaluates the timing of action outcomes , 2011, NeuroImage.

[17]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Neural mechanisms involved in error processing: A comparison of errors made with and without awareness , 2005, NeuroImage.

[18]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Analysis of functional image analysis contest (FIAC) data with brainvoyager QX: From single‐subject to cortically aligned group general linear model analysis and self‐organizing group independent component analysis , 2006, Human brain mapping.

[19]  M. Rushworth,et al.  The left parietal and premotor cortices: motor attention and selection , 2003, NeuroImage.

[20]  M. Walton,et al.  Action sets and decisions in the medial frontal cortex , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  M. Corbetta,et al.  The Reorienting System of the Human Brain: From Environment to Theory of Mind , 2008, Neuron.

[22]  W. Boucsein,et al.  Standardized task strain and system response times in human-computer interaction. , 1995, Ergonomics.

[23]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  W Kuhmann,et al.  Experimental investigation of psychophysiological stress-reactions induced by different system response times in human-computer interaction. , 1987, Ergonomics.

[25]  André Brechmann,et al.  Delayed system response times affect immediate physiology and the dynamics of subsequent button press behavior. , 2014, Psychophysiology.

[26]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Anterior Cingulate Conflict Monitoring and Adjustments in Control , 2004, Science.

[27]  Christina Freytag,et al.  Designing And Engineering Time The Psychology Of Time Perception In Software , 2016 .

[28]  S. Eickhoff,et al.  Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Three Key Regions for Supervisory Attentional Control: Evidence from Neuroimaging Meta-analyses , 2022 .

[29]  Kristina M. Visscher,et al.  A Core System for the Implementation of Task Sets , 2006, Neuron.

[30]  Hugo D. Critchley,et al.  Dissecting axes of autonomic control in humans: Insights from neuroimaging , 2011, Autonomic Neuroscience.

[31]  G Ben-Shakhar,et al.  The roles of stimulus novelty and significance in determining the electrodermal orienting response: interactive versus additive approaches. , 1994, Psychophysiology.

[32]  C Tempelmann,et al.  Electrodynamic headphones and woofers for application in magnetic resonance imaging scanners. , 1998, Medical physics.

[33]  Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park Quality of Services , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[34]  H. Scheich,et al.  Human striatum is differentially activated by delayed, omitted, and immediate registering feedback , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[35]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Corticocortical connections of area F3 (SMA‐proper) and area F6 (pre‐SMA) in the macaque monkey , 1993, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[36]  M. Ullsperger,et al.  Neurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive behavior. , 2014, Physiological reviews.