| Literature DB >> 35954608 |
Chengmin Zhou1,2, Fangfang Yuan1,2, Ting Huang1,2, Yurong Zhang1,2, Jake Kaner3.
Abstract
It is crucial that the interface design of mobile apps be age-appropriate at this stage of global aging, as the new epidemic has resulted in a higher sense of isolation among older persons. In this study, four typical senior social service mobile applications were chosen to give older persons the ability to complete user login duties. The participants were 16 older adults (7 men and 9 women) aged 55 to 76. Both objective and subjective data, including task completion time, gaze length, pupil diameter changes, EEG wave amplitude changes, and subjective sensations of older persons, were gathered using a combination of eye-movement and EEG signal approaches. The program was created to investigate the effects of interface design aspects on older people's task performance, including interface layout, interface color, information density, icon size and position, etc. The study's findings revealed that when the user task completion time and average fixation duration were shorter, the line of sight was more equally distributed, the visual focus was closer to the login button, and the average EEG amplitude of the user changed more, the older adults performed better. The palace layout had a more positive effect on job completion among older individuals when it came to interface layout. In terms of interface color, colored (contrasting) colors should serve to highlight the interface's essential information points while they can be removed. In terms of interface information density, a low-density level interface design can simplify and lower the cognitive load of task execution for older people. The first level of icons in the interface and their position in the visual center of the interface is the best interface design for older persons in terms of icon size and position. The results of this study have theoretical ramifications for a thorough understanding of the factors influencing older people's task performance, practical ramifications for the design of older people-centered interfaces, and they contribute to our understanding of the characteristics of older people's interface interaction behavior.Entities:
Keywords: EEG signals; design element features; eye tracking; interface design; older persons; user experience
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954608 PMCID: PMC9367723 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159251
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Basic participant information statistics table.
| Participants | ||
|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | |
| Number | 7 | 9 |
| Mean ± SD | 60.57 ± 6.58 | 62.33 ± 8.28 |
Figure 1Experimental stimulus material: the login interface of the four apps.
Figure 2Experimental procedure for EEG recording and eye tracking: (a) The overall process of the experiment; (b) Instrument adjustment and calibration; (c) User experiment diagram.
ANOVA of participants’ task completion time for different Apps: A refers to C-life Senior Care APP; B refers to Senior Living APP; C refers to Senior Care Manager APP; D refers to Smart Aging APP.
| Applications | ANOVA | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | |||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | F | P | |
| Task Completion time (s) | 25.50 | 15.81 | 24.44 | 21.58 | 20.55 | 18.21 | 21.23 | 12.34 | 3.240 | 0.093 |
Figure 3Line chart of participants’ task completion time in different Apps: A refers to C-life Senior Care APP; B refers to Senior Living APP; C refers to Senior Care Manager APP; D refers to Smart Aging APP.
ANOVA of participants’ average fixation duration for different Apps: A refers to C-life Senior Care APP; B refers to Senior Living APP; C refers to Senior Care Manager APP; D refers to Smart Aging APP.
| Applications | ANOVA | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | |||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | F | P | |
| Fixation duration (s) | 6.39 | 6.33 | 7.36 | 9.11 | 6.47 | 6.42 | 4.84 | 5.97 | 1.667 | 0.007 |
Figure 4Line graph of the average fixation duration time of participants in different Apps: A refers to C-life Senior Care APP; B refers to Senior Living APP; C refers to Senior Care Manager APP; D refers to Smart Aging APP.
ANOVA of participants’ mean pupil diameter for different Apps: A refers to C-life Senior Care APP; B refers to Senior Living APP; C refers to Senior Care Manager APP; D refers to Smart Aging APP.
| Applications | ANOVA | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | |||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | F | P | |
| Mean Pupli diameter (mm) | 3.04 | 0.44 | 2.46 | 1.28 | 2.82 | 0.84 | 2.67 | 1.14 | 0.931 | 0.008 |
Figure 5Line graph of mean pupil diameter of participants with different Apps: A refers to C-life Senior Care APP; B refers to Senior Living APP; C refers to Senior Care Manager APP; D refers to Smart Aging APP.
Figure 6Four product eye movement track maps: (a) C-Life Senior Care APP login screen track diagram; (b) Senior Living APP login screen track diagram; (c) Senior Care Manager APP login screen track diagram; (d) Smart Aging APP login screen track diagram.
Figure 7Four product eye movement heat maps: (a) C-Life Senior Care APP interface hot spot map; (b) Senior Living APP interface hot spot map; (c) Senior Care Manager APP interface hot spot map; (d) Smart Aging APP interface hot spot map.
Figure 8Electrode wave forms of different APP processes for each electrode position.
Analysis of the mean value of the amplitude of each electrode: A refers to C-life Senior Care APP; B refers to Senior Living APP; C refers to Senior Care Manager APP; D refers to Smart Aging APP.
| Electrodes | Mean | SD | Number | Electrodes | Mean | SD | Number | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fpz | A | 0.004665 | 27.31288 | 16 | F7 | A | −0.02338 | 20.20405 | 16 |
| B | 0.134871 | 21.20736 | 16 | B | 0.093055 | 16.96126 | 16 | ||
| C | 0.474146 | 26.35667 | 16 | C | 0.857294 | 23.63811 | 16 | ||
| D | −0.06103 | 17.80065 | 16 | D | −0.010486 | 13.98773 | 16 | ||
| Total | 0.138163 | 23.16939 | 64 | Total | 0.916483 | 18.69779 | 64 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| F4 | A | −0.02202 | 14.76019 | 16 | F8 | A | −0.03429 | 12.74355 | 16 |
| B | 0.113233 | 13.24345 | 16 | B | 0.108794 | 12.79345 | 16 | ||
| C | 0.538435 | 23.20325 | 16 | C | 0.708056 | 19.00214 | 16 | ||
| D | −0.02329 | 11.67699 | 16 | D | 0.040016 | 10.13491 | 16 | ||
| Total | 0.15159 | 15.72097 | 64 | Total | 0.205644 | 13.66815 | 64 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| C4 | A | −0.01727 | 11.89204 | 16 | P7 | A | −0.01281 | 12.46189 | 16 |
| B | 0.060629 | 10.98026 | 16 | B | 0.051005 | 14.20482 | 16 | ||
| C | 0.424661 | 15.35449 | 16 | C | 0.381196 | 22.86642 | 16 | ||
| D | −0.01441 | 10.28045 | 16 | D | −0.05949 | 12.55813 | 16 | ||
| Total | 0.113403 | 12.12681 | 64 | Total | 0.089975 | 15.52282 | 64 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| P3 | A | −0.01503 | 17.14472 | 16 | O1 | A | −0.03526 | 18.31962 | 16 |
| B | 0.05162 | 12.82255 | 16 | B | 0.0478 | 16.6618 | 16 | ||
| C | 0.351402 | 17.40791 | 16 | C | 0.401782 | 17.03462 | 16 | ||
| D | −0.07309 | 11.5843 | 16 | D | −0.08066 | 12.17158 | 16 | ||
| Total | 0.078726 | 14.73987 | 64 | Total | 0.083416 | 16.04691 | 64 | ||
Mauchly sphericity test.
| Within-Subject | Mauchly | Approximate | Degrees of Freedom | P | Epsilon | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenhouse- | Cyn Feldt | Lower Limit | |||||
| brain area | 0.164 | 3694.900 | 27 | 0.000 | 0.664 | 0.666 | 0.143 |
May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
ANOVA for different applications.
| Class III Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | F | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 34.563 | 1 | 34.563 | 0.023 | 0.880 |
| Different Apps | 2002.538 | 3 | 667.513 | 0.443 | 0.722 |
| Errors | 3,085,338.250 | 2048 | 1506.513 |
ANOVA for electrode × APP.
| Value | F | Assumption Degrees of Freedom | Error Degrees of Freedom | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | Billy trajectory | 0.002 | 0.618 | 7.000 | 2042.000 | 0.000 |
| Wilke Lambda | 0.998 | 0.618 | 7.000 | 2042.000 | 0.000 | |
| Hotelling track | 0.002 | 0.618 | 7.000 | 2042.000 | 0.000 | |
| Roy Max Root | 0.002 | 0.618 | 7.000 | 2042.000 | 0.000 | |
| Intercept × Apps | Billy trajectory | 0.011 | 1.027 | 21.000 | 6132.000 | 0.425 |
| Wilke Lambda | 0.990 | 1.027 | 21.000 | 5864.072 | 0.425 | |
| Hotelling track | 0.011 | 1.027 | 21.000 | 6122.000 | 0.426 | |
| Roy Max Root | 0.005 | 1.466 | 7.000 | 2044.000 | 0.175 |
Exact statistic. This statistic is the upper limit of F that generates the lower limit of significance level.
Figure 9Marginal mean value of electrode amplitude.
Analysis of the mean amplitude of each brain region.
| Brain Area | Mean | SD | Number | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frontal Lobe Area | C-Life Senior Care APP | 0.5363 | 10.49246 | 16 |
| Senior Living APP | 0.0364 | 17.20792 | 16 | |
| Senior Care Manager APP | −0.3559 | 19.38743 | 16 | |
| Smart Aging APP | −0.3800 | 10.83575 | 16 | |
| Total | −0.408 | 14.98940 | 64 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Parietal Area | C-Life Senior Care APP | 0.1480 | 10.28221 | 16 |
| Senior Living APP | 0.3940 | 16.71846 | 16 | |
| Senior Care Manager APP | 0.0752 | 21.89155 | 16 | |
| Smart Aging APP | −0.752 | 13.09230 | 16 | |
| Total | 0.0258 | 16.08620 | 64 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Temporal Lobe Area | C-Life Senior Care APP | 0.2992 | 8.87934 | 16 |
| Senior Living APP | 0.2720 | 15.38968 | 16 | |
| Senior Care Manager APP | −0.0673 | 13.48589 | 16 | |
| Smart Aging APP | −0.6464 | 10.60769 | 16 | |
| Total | 0.0356 | 12.34672 | 64 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Occipital Area | C-Life Senior Care APP | −0.0270 | 15.71846 | 16 |
| Senior Living APP | 0.5609 | 19.61370 | 16 | |
| Senior Care Manager APP | 0.2936 | 17.44823 | 16 | |
| Smart Aging APP | −0.7069 | 12.71110 | 16 | |
| Total | 0.1166 | 16.56066 | 64 | |
Mauchly sphericity test.
| Within-Subject | Mauchly | Approximate | Degrees of Freedom | P | Epsilon | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenhouse- | Cyn Feldt | Lower Limit | |||||
| brain area | 0.670 | 820.670 | 14 | 0.000 | 0.437 | 0.463 | 0.200 |
May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
ANOVA for different applications.
| Class III Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | F |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 24.581 | 1 | 24.581 | 0.035 | 0.857 |
| Different Apps | 1122.500 | 3 | 374.167 | 0.526 | 0.665 |
| Errors | 1,457,707.584 | 2048 | 711.711 |
ANOVA for brain region × APP.
| Value | F | Assumption Degrees of Freedom | Error Degrees of Freedom |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | Billy trajectory | 0.000 | 0.044
| 3.000 | 2046.000 | 0.000 |
| Wilke Lambda | 1.000 | 0.044 | 3.000 | 2046.000 | 0.000 | |
| Hotelling track | 0.000 | 0.044 | 3.000 | 2046.000 | 0.000 | |
| Roy Max Root | 0.000 | 0.044 | 3.000 | 2046.000 | 0.000 | |
| Intercept × Apps | Billy trajectory | 0.002 | 0.434 | 9.000 | 6144.000 | 0.918 |
| Wilke Lambda | 0.998 | 0.434 | 9.000 | 4969.577 | 0.918 | |
| Hotelling track | 0.002 | 0.433 | 9.000 | 6134.000 | 0.918 | |
| Roy Max Root | 0.002 | 1.057 | 3.000 | 2048.000 | 0.366 |
Exact statistic. This statistic is the upper limit of F that generates the lower limit of significance level.
Figure 10Marginal mean of brain area amplitudes: A refers to Frontal area; B refers to Parietal area; C refers to Temporal area; D refers to Occipital area.