skip to main content
10.1145/3027063.3053082acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Attention, Comprehension, Execution: Effects of Different Designs of Biofeedback Display

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The rapid development of biosensors and wearable devices has led to an increasing number of quantified self applications with physiological data. However, conventional graph-style visual representations which have been commonly used for behavior monitoring and control may not be the most applicable biofeedback methods. This is because biosensor data is not intuitive and is hard to manipulate directly and precisely, especially in computer-mediated collaborative interactions. In this work, we explore four different designs, i.e., graphical, illustrative, artistic and ambient representations, by visualizing physiological data in individual settings. Following the Research through Design model, we compare these four designs in terms of their abilities to facilitate biofeedback interpretation through a within-subject controlled experiment with 24 participants. The results suggest that users' visual perception is affected by different design styles.

References

  1. The Association for Applied Psychophysiology AAPB and Biofeedback. 2016. What is Biofeedback? (2016). http://www.aapb.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Scott R. Bishop, Mark Lau, Shauna Shapiro, Linda Carlson, Nicole D. Anderson, James Carmody, Zindel V. Segal, Susan Abbey, Michael Speca, Drew Velting, and Gerald Devins. 2004. Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 11, 3 (2004), 230--241. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. James Carmody. 2009. Evolving Conceptions of Mindfulness in Clinical Settings. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 23, 3 (2009), 270--280. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1891/0889--8391.23.3.270Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Sunny Consolvo, David W. McDonald, Tammy Toscos, Mike Y. Chen, Jon Froehlich, Beverly Harrison, Predrag Klasnja, Anthony LaMarca, Louis LeGrand, Ryan Libby, Ian Smith, and James A. Landay. 2008. Activity Sensing in the Wild: A Field Trial of Ubifit Garden. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1797--1806. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357335 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Daniel Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, Elizabeth Bales, James Fogarty, and Sean Munson. 2014. Taming Data Complexity in Lifelogs: Exploring Visual Cuts of Personal Informatics Data. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 667--676. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598558 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Daniel A. Epstein, Monica Caraway, Chuck Johnston, An Ping, James Fogarty, and Sean A. Munson. 2016. Beyond Abandonment to Next Steps: Understanding and Designing for Life After Personal Informatics Tool Use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1109--1113. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858045 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jon Froehlich, Leah Findlater, Marilyn Ostergren, Solai Ramanathan, Josh Peterson, Inness Wragg, Eric Larson, Fabia Fu, Mazhengmin Bai, Shwetak Patel, and James A. Landay. 2012. The Design and Evaluation of Prototype Eco-feedback Displays for Fixture-level Water Usage Data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2367--2376. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208397 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jennefer Hart, Alistair G. Sutcliffe, and Antonella De Angeli. 2013. Love It or Hate It!: Interactivity and User Types. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2059--2068. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481282 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jeffrey Heer, Nicholas Kong, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2009. Sizing the Horizon: The Effects of Chart Size and Layering on the Graphical Perception of Time Series Visualizations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1303--1312. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518897 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. Huang, M. Tory, B. Adriel Aseniero, L. Bartram, S. Bateman, S. Carpendale, A. Tang, and R. Woodbury. 2015. Personal Visualization and Personal Visual Analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 21, 3 (March 2015), 420--433. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2359887 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Melody Smith Jones. 2014. How Biofeedback is Set to Transform the Quantified Self. (2014). http://blogs.perficient.com/healthcare/blog/2014/10/28/how-biofeedback-is-set-to-transform-the-quantified-self/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Vaiva Kalnikaite, Abigail Sellen, Steve Whittaker, and David Kirk. 2010. Now Let Me See Where I Was: Understanding How Lifelogs Mediate Memory. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2045--2054. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753638 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Matthew Kay, Eun Kyoung Choe, Jesse Shepherd, Benjamin Greenstein, Nathaniel Watson, Sunny Consolvo, and Julie A. Kientz. 2012. Lullaby: A Capture & Access System for Understanding the Sleep Environment. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 226--234. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370253 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Rohit Ashok Khot, Jeewon Lee, Deepti Aggarwal, Larissa Hjorth, and Florian 'Floyd' Mueller. 2015. TastyBeats: Designing Palatable Representations of Physical Activity. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2933-- 2942. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702197 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. George Poonkhin Khut. 2007. Cardiomorphologies: An Inner Journey Through Art. IEEE MultiMedia 14, 4 (Oct. 2007), 5--7. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MMUL. 2007.70Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Robert Kosara. 2007. Visualization Criticism - The Missing Link Between Information Visualization and Art. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference Information Visualization (IV '07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 631--636. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IV.2007.130 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Lau and A. Vande Moere. 2007. Towards a Model of Information Aesthetics in Information Visualization. In Information Visualization, 2007. IV '07. 11th International Conference. 87--92. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IV.2007.114 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ralph Lengler and Martin J. Eppler. 2007. Towards a Periodic Table of Visualization Methods of Management. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Graphics and Visualization in Engineering (GVE '07). ACTA Press, Anaheim, CA, USA, 83--88. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1712936.1712954Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010a. A Stagebased Model of Personal Informatics Systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 557--566. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/ 1753326.1753409Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ian Li, Jodi Forlizzi, and Anind Dey. 2010b. Know Thyself: Monitoring and Reflecting on Facets of One's Life. In CHI '10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4489--4492. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/ 1753846.1754181Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Diana MacLean, Asta Roseway, and Mary Czerwinski. 2013. MoodWings: A Wearable Biofeedback Device for Real-time Stress Intervention. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 66, 8 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2504335.2504406 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Andrew Vande Moere. 2008. Beyond the Tyranny of the Pixel: Exploring the Physicality of Information Visualization. In Proceedings of the 2008 12th International Conference Information Visualisation (IV '08). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 469--474. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IV.2008.84 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Hans-Georg Muller. 1999. Zhuangzi's "Dream of the Butterfly": A Daoist Interpretation. Philosophy East and West 49, 4 (1999), 439--450. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1399947 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Dane Petersen, Jay Steele, and Joe Wilkerson. 2009. WattBot: A Residential Electricity Monitoring and Feedback System. In CHI '09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2847--2852. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520413 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Zachary Pousman and John Stasko. 2006. A Taxonomy of Ambient Information Systems: Four Patterns of Design. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 67--74. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1133265. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Zachary Pousman, John Stasko, and Michael Mateas. 2007. Casual Information Visualization: Depictions of Data in Everyday Life. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 13, 6 (Nov. 2007), 1145-- 1152. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2007.70541 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Peter Rautek, Stefan Bruckner, Eduard Gröller, and Ivan Viola. 2008. Illustrative Visualization: New Technology or Useless Tautology? SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 42, 3, Article 4 (Aug. 2008), 8 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1408626.1408633 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Leslie Ridgeway. 2015. A new heart rate app fuses health, technology and social media. (2015). https://news.usc.edu/74694/a-new-heart-rate-app-fuses-health-technology-and-social-media/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Pedro Sanches, Kristina Höök, Elsa Vaara, Claus Weymann, Markus Bylund, Pedro Ferreira, Nathalie Peira, and Marie Sjölinder. 2010. Mind the Body!: Designing a Mobile Stress Management Application Encouraging Personal Reflection. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 47--56. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858182 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Julia Schwarz, Jennifer Mankoff, and H. Scott Matthews. 2009. Reflections of Everyday Activities in Spending Data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1737--1740. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518968 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Pete B. Shull, Wisit Jirattigalachote, Michael A. Hunt, Mark R. Cutkosky, and Scott L. Delp. 2014. Quantified self and human movement: A review on the clinical impact of wearable sensing and feedback for gait analysis and intervention. Gait and Posture 40, 1 (2014), 11--19. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.03.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Natasha Singer. 2015. Technology That Prods You to Take Action, Not Just Collect Data. (2015). http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/technology/technology-that-prods-you-to-take-action-not-just-collect-data.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Tobias Skog. 2004. Activity Wallpaper: Ambient Visualization of Activity Information. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 325--328. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013171 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Jay Vidyarthi, Bernhard E. Riecke, and Diane Gromala. 2012. Sonic Cradle: Designing for an Immersive Experience of Meditation by Connecting Respiration to Music. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 408--417. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2317956. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Fernanda B. Viégas and Martin Wattenberg. 2007. Artistic Data Visualization: Beyond Visual Analytics. In Proceedings of the 2Nd International Conference on Online Communities and Social Computing (OCSC'07). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 182-- 191. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1784297.1784319 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Ivan Viola, Meister Eduard Groller, Katja Buhler, Markus Hadwiger, Bernhard Preim, David Ebert, Mario Costa Sousa, and Don Stredney. 2005. IEEE Visualization Tutorial on Illustrative Visualization. (2005). https://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/research/publications/2005/Viola-vistutillustrativevis/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Vygandas Šimbelis, Anders Lundström, Kristina Höök, Jordi Solsona, and Vincent Lewandowski. 2014. Metaphone: Machine Aesthetics Meets Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557152 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. S. Wang, Y. Tanahashi, N. Leaf, and K. L. Ma. 2015. Design and Effects of Personal Visualizations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 35, 4 (July 2015), 82--93. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2015.74 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Bin Yu, Nienke Bongers, Alissa van Asseldonk, Jun Hu, Mathias Funk, and Loe Feijs. 2016. LivingSurface: Biofeedback Through Shape-changing Display. In Proceedings of the TEI '16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 168--175. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839469 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Caroline Ziemkiewicz and Robert Kosara. 2009. Embedding Information Visualization within Visual Representation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 307--326. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978--3--642-04141--9_15Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Attention, Comprehension, Execution: Effects of Different Designs of Biofeedback Display

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2017
      3954 pages
      ISBN:9781450346566
      DOI:10.1145/3027063

      Copyright © 2017 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 May 2017

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI EA '17 Paper Acceptance Rate1,000of5,000submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader