| Literature DB >> 36248527 |
Chengmin Zhou1,2, Yawen Qian1,2, Ting Huang1,2, Jake Kaner3, Yurong Zhang1,2.
Abstract
Smart homes create a beneficial environment for the lives of elderly people and enhance the quality of their home lives. This study aims to explore the design of age-friendly interfaces that can meet the emotional needs of self-care elderly people from the perspective of functional realization of the operating interface. Sixteen elderly users aged fifty-five and above were selected as subjects with healthy eyes and no excessive drooping eyelids to obscure them. Four representative age-friendly applications with different interface designs were selected from the Android application market as the stimulus material for the experiment, and a total of fifteen pages were browsed independently. During the experiment, the ErgoLAB human-computer environment synchronization cloud platform was used to monitor and record the subjects' multidimensional physiological indicators of eye movements, skin electricity, and heart rate variability when using different styles of mobile application interfaces. Combined with the post-experimental PAD emotion scale data, the preferences of emotional interface design elements of the self-care elderly were analyzed to guide the subsequent design practice. The results show that: on the layout characteristics of the home page, a simple and intuitive multi-column layout or card layout combined with a bottom navigation bar type main navigation is used; on the choice of the main color, a single color with low saturation is used as the main color, with high saturation color accents to play a role in highlighting key information; on the information density of the home page, a moderate proportion of graphics and text is adopted, with low information density; on the arrangement of the page content, they try to give priority to information content with high user relevance.Entities:
Keywords: PAD emotion scale; elderly users; emotional interaction; eye tracking; galvanic skin response; heart rate variability; interface style
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248527 PMCID: PMC9555168 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.935202
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Eye movement experiment calibration page.
Reliability coefficient test of PAD emotion scale.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| 0.979 | Barlett Test of Sphericity | 60.888 | |
| Barlett Test of Sphericity value | df | 6 | |
|
| 0.000 | ||
Normal distribution of the PAD scale of the four products.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Senior care | 0.167 | 12 | 0.200 | 0.921 | 12 | 0.294 |
| Smart senior care | 0.187 | 12 | 0.200 | 0.905 | 12 | 0.181 |
| Senior care manager | 0.145 | 12 | 0.200 | 0.945 | 12 | 0.570 |
| C-Life senior care | 0.106 | 12 | 0.200 | 0.949 | 12 | 0.615 |
This is the lower limit of true saliency.
Correspondence of each item and each dimension.
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Senior care | Score | 2 | −1.69 | 2.38 | −1.75 | −0.88 | −0.25 | 1.88 | −0.75 | 1.31 | 1.13 | 0.5 | −0.94 |
| Average value | 0.24 | 0 | 0.5 | ||||||||||
| Smart senior care | Score | 2.44 | −2 | 2.5 | −1.81 | −1 | −0.31 | 0.56 | −0.63 | 2.06 | 0.38 | 2 | −1.44 |
| Average value | 0.28 | −0.35 | 0.75 | ||||||||||
| Senior care manager | Score | 2.25 | −1.63 | 2.56 | −2.38 | −1.56 | −0.56 | 0.56 | −0.13 | 1.69 | 0.56 | 2 | −0.56 |
| Average value | 0.2 | -0.42 | 0.92 | ||||||||||
| C-life senior care | Score | 2.25 | −2.31 | 2.24 | −2.38 | −0.88 | -0.88 | −0.19 | −0.13 | 0.81 | 0.06 | 0.69 | −1.69 |
| Average value | 0 | −0.52 | −0.03 | ||||||||||
Correlation verification between eye movement index and PAD value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pleasure (P) | Pearson correlation | 0.193 | 0.139 | −0.756 | 0.547 | 0.503 | 0.012 | 0.585 | 0.720 | 0.665 |
| Sig | 0.008 | 0.006 | 0.244 | 0.453 | 0.497 | 0.988 | 0.415 | 0.280 | 0.335 | |
| Activation (A) | Pearson correlation | −0.426 | −0.492 | −0.964 | 0.995 | −0.336 | 0.260 | −0.192 | −0.103 | −0.168 |
| Sig | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.036 | 0.005 | 0.664 | 0.740 | 0.808 | 0.897 | 0.832 | |
| Dominance (D) | Pearson correlation | 0.703 | 0.661 | −0.34 | 0.117 | 0.853 | −0.499 | 0.921 | 0.928 | 0.917 |
| Sig | 0.297 | 0.339 | 0.066 | 0.883 | 0.147 | 0.501 | 0.079 | 0.072 | 0.083 |
Corresponds to p < 0.05 and
At the 0.01 level corresponds to p < 0.01, both indicate significant correlations.
Eye movement index and PAD value Spearman correlation test.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pleasure (P) | Spearman correlation coefficient | -0.600 | 0.400 | 0.400 | 0.400 |
| Sig | 0.400 | 0.600 | 0.600 | 0.600 | |
| Activation (A) | Spearman correlation coefficient | -0.800 | 0.200 | 0.200 | 0.200 |
| Sig | 0.200 | 0.800 | 0.800 | 0.800 | |
| Dominance (D) | Spearman correlation coefficient | 0.400 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Sig |
Corresponds to p < 0.05;
Correlation significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Figure 2Eye movement data. Panel (A) is the average pupil diameter of the four products, panel (B) is the first gaze time of AOI of four products, panel (C) is the constant gaze time of four products, and panel (D) is the average absolute distance of the four products.
Figure 3The average value of the skin signal movement of the four products.
Figure 4Mean heart rate variability of the four products. (A) C-Life Senior Care, (B) Senior Care, (C) Senior Care Manager, (D) Smart Senior Care.