| Literature DB >> 30687160 |
Sichao Song1, Seiji Yamada1,2.
Abstract
Today's computers are becoming ever more versatile. They are used in various applications, such as for education, entertainment, and information services. In other words, computers are often required to not only inform users of information but also communicate with them socially. Previous studies explored the design of ambient light displays and suggested that such systems can convey information to people in the periphery of their attention without distracting them from their primary work. However, they mainly focused on using ambient lights to convey certain information. It is still unclear whether and how the lights can influence people's perception and decision-making. To explore this, we performed three experiments using a ping-pong game, Ultimatum game, and Give-Some game, in which we attached an LED strip to the front-bottom of a computer monitor and had it display a set of light expressions. Our evaluation of the results suggested that expressive lights do affect human perception and decision-making. Participants liked and anthropomorphized the computer more when it displayed light animations. Particularly, they perceived the computer as positive and friendlier when it displayed green and low intensity light animation, while red and high intensity light animation was perceived as negative and more hostile. They consequently behaved with more tolerance and cooperation to the computer when it was positive compared with when it was negative. The findings can open up possibilities for the design of ambient light systems for various applications where human-machine interaction is needed.Entities:
Keywords: affective computing; ambient light systems; expressive lights; human-machine interaction; peripheral display
Year: 2019 PMID: 30687160 PMCID: PMC6333633 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1System overview.
Figure 2Four screen shots of ping pong game.
Figure 3Setting of experiment environment.
Figure 4Set of light patterns we designed for ping pong game. (A) Sinusoidal waveform, (B) Triangle waveform, (C) Swipe animation, (D) Random animation.
Set of light animations for each game event.
| Sinusoidal | 2 | – | RGB: 0, 0, 0 | RGB: 255, 255, 255 | Waiting for game to start |
| 0.2 | – | RGB: 0,0,0 | RGB: 255, 0, 0 | game over | |
| Triangle | 0.6 | 60% | RGB: 0, 0, 0 | RGB: 0, 255, 0 | Ball hits racket |
| 0.6 | 60% | RGB: 0,0,0 | RGB: 0, 0, 255 | Ball hits wall | |
| Swipe | – | – | RGB: 255, 255, 255 | RGB: 255, 255, 255 | Playing |
| Random | – | – | RGB: 100, 100, 100 | RGB: 255, 255, 255 | Game over |
Summary of evaluation results.
| Perception of game | – | 5.67 | 4.33 | 3.21 | 0.47 | |
| Perception of computer | Likeness | 5 | 3.25 | 3.26 | 0.48 | |
| Anthropomorphism | 2.83 | 2 | 2.69 | 0.33 | ||
| Rate of gaming performance | Capability | 3 | 2 | 0.84 | n.s. | 0.03 |
| Competitiveness | 2.5 | 2.5 | −0.23 | n.s. | 0.00 | |
| Rate of perceived workload | frustration | 2.5 | 2 | 1.61 | n.s. | 0.12 |
| Stress | 5 | 5 | −0.07 | n.s. | 0.00 | |
| Final score | – | 60 | 30 | 1.42 | n.s. | 0.09 |
Set of light animations for each game event.
| Sinusoidal | 1 | − | RGB: 0, 0, 0 | RGB: 0, 255, 0 | Induce positive Perception |
| rectangle | 0.2 | 50% | RGB: 0, 0, 0 | RGB: 255, 0, 0 | Induce negative perception |
Figure 5Results of the Ultimatum game. (A) Offer, (B) Light animation. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 6Results of Give-Some game. (A) Mean tokens given to computer. (B) Mean tokens expected from computer. *p < 0.05.
List of adjectives used by participants to describe the light animations.
| Description | Friendly (12), calm (9), gentle (6), smiling (1), beautiful (1), kind (5), alive (2) | Angry (14), oppressive (6), feeling of tension (2), warning (7), challenging (3), dangerous (3) | Normal (20) |
Numbers in parenthesis indicate number of participants who gave comments.