Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3656650.3656694acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaviConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Encouraging Disengagement: Using Eye Tracking to Examine Attention with Different Levels of Juicy Design

Published: 03 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Juicy design, typically used in games, involves adding non-functional visual embellishments to increase engagement. We investigate if too much or too little juicy design can lower attention. A controlled experiment examines the application of four levels of juicy elements to a target stimulus for saccade and smooth pursuit eye tracking tasks. Pupil size, blink rate, and questionnaires are used to estimate levels of attention. The results suggest that highly stimulating juicy elements paired with an engaging task, followed by a non-task rest break employing less stimulation, indicated decreased levels of attention and engagement. We discuss the implications of these findings and provide use cases for health, games, and ethics.

Supplemental Material

ZIP File
Short paper video (JuicyGaze.mp4), supplemental material: methodology (JuicyEyes_AVI2024_SupplementaryMaterials.pdf)
ZIP File
1) Video showcasing designs and motion for the eye-tracking tasks. 2) A pdf with the study and analysis methodology.

References

[1]
Scott Bateman, Regan L. Mandryk, Carl Gutwin, Aaron Genest, David McDine, and Christopher Brooks. 2010. Useful junk? the effects of visual embellishment on comprehension and memorability of charts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2573–2582. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753716
[2]
Rita Borgo, Alfie Abdul-Rahman, Farhan Mohamed, Philip W. Grant, Irene Reppa, Luciano Floridi, and Min Chen. 2012. An Empirical Study on Using Visual Embellishments in Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 12 (Dec. 2012), 2759–2768. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.197
[3]
Iuliia Brishtel, Anam Ahmad Khan, Thomas Schmidt, Tilman Dingler, Shoya Ishimaru, and Andreas Dengel. 2020. Mind Wandering in a Multimodal Reading Setting: Behavior Analysis and Automatic Detection Using Eye-Tracking and an EDA Sensor. Sensors 20, 99 (Jan 2020), 2546. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20092546
[4]
John T. Cacioppo, Louis G. Tassinary, and Gary Berntson. 2007. Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546396
[5]
Tommaso Crepax and Jan Tobias Muehlberg. 2022. Upgrading the Protection of Children from Manipulative and Addictive Strategies in Online Games: Legal and Technical Solutions beyond Privacy Regulation. The International Review of Information Ethics 31, 1 (Aug. 2022). https://doi.org/10.29173/irie480 arxiv:2207.09928 [cs]
[6]
James Danckert, Tina Hammerschmidt, Jeremy Marty-Dugas, and Daniel Smilek. 2018. Boredom: Under-aroused and restless. Consciousness and Cognition 61 (May 2018), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.03.014
[7]
George Charles Drew. 1951. Variations in reflex blink-rate during visual-motor tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 3, 2 (1951), 73–88.
[8]
Dr Sowmya R eOphtha, Dr Amr Mohamed. [n. d.]. Intermittent Exotropia Simplified for the Postgraduates. https://www.eophtha.com/posts/intermittent-exotropia-simplified-for-the-postgraduates [Accessed 02-04-2024].
[9]
David R Flatla, Carl Gutwin, Lennart E Nacke, Scott Bateman, and Regan L Mandryk. 2011. Calibration games: making calibration tasks enjoyable by adding motivating game elements. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 403–412.
[10]
Michael S Franklin, James M Broadway, Michael D Mrazek, Jonathan Smallwood, and Jonathan W Schooler. 2013. Window to the wandering mind: Pupillometry of spontaneous thought while reading.
[11]
Romain Grandchamp, Claire Braboszcz, and Arnaud Delorme. 2014. Oculometric variations during mind wandering. Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00031
[12]
David J. Grüning, Frederik Riedel, and Philipp Lorenz-Spreen. 2023. Directing smartphone use through the self-nudge app one sec. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 8 (Feb. 2023), e2213114120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2213114120
[13]
Matthias Hartmann and Martin H. Fischer. 2014. Pupillometry: The Eyes Shed Fresh Light on the Mind. Current Biology 24, 7 (Mar 2014), R281–R282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.02.028
[14]
Kieran Hicks, Patrick Dickinson, Jussi Holopainen, and Kathrin Gerling. [n. d.]. Good Game Feel: An Empirically Grounded Framework for Juicy Design. ([n. d.]).
[15]
Kieran Hicks, Kathrin Gerling, Patrick Dickinson, and Vero Vanden Abeele. 2019. Juicy game design: understanding the impact of visual embellishments on player experience. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 185–197.
[16]
Alexis Hiniker, Bongshin Lee, Kiley Sobel, and Eun Kyoung Choe. 2017. Plan & play: supporting intentional media use in early childhood. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on interaction design and children. 85–95.
[17]
Arthur Jampolsky. 1954. Differential Diagnostic Characteristics of Intermittent Exotropia and True Exophoria. American Orthoptic Journal 4, 1 (Jan. 1954), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/0065955X.1954.11981106
[18]
Daniel Kahneman. 1973. Attention and effort. Vol. 1063. Citeseer.
[19]
Dominic Kao. 2020. The effects of juiciness in an action RPG. Entertainment Computing 34 (2020), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100359
[20]
Dominic Kao and D Fox Harrell. 2017. Toward Understanding the Impact of Visual Themes and Embellishment on Performance, Engagement, and Self-Efficacy in Educational Games. In The annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).
[21]
Alexey Kashevnik, Roman Shchedrin, Christian Kaiser, and Alexander Stocker. 2021. Driver Distraction Detection Methods: A Literature Review and Framework. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 60063–60076. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3073599
[22]
Jacob Leon Kröger, Otto Hans-Martin Lutz, and Florian Müller. 2020. What Does Your Gaze Reveal About You? On the Privacy Implications of Eye Tracking. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42504-3_15
[23]
Otto Lowenstein, Richard Feinberg, and Irene E. Loewenfeld. 1963. Pupillary Movements During Acute and Chronic Fatigue: A New Test for the Objective Evaluation of Tiredness. Federal Aviation Agency, Office of Aviation Medicine. Google-Books-ID: 030Z45MEbWoC.
[24]
Antonio Maffei and Alessandro Angrilli. 2018. Spontaneous eye blink rate: An index of dopaminergic component of sustained attention and fatigue. International Journal of Psychophysiology 123 (Jan 2018), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.11.009
[25]
Marnix Naber, George A Alvarez, and Ken Nakayama. 2013. Tracking the allocation of attention using human pupillary oscillations. Frontiers in psychology 4 (2013), 919.
[26]
Yi Pang, Lawrence Gnanaraj, Jessica Gayleard, Genie Han, and Sarah R. Hatt. 2021. Interventions for intermittent exotropia. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 9, 9 (Sep 2021), CD003737. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003737.pub4
[27]
Hauke Sandhaus. 2023. Promoting Bright Patterns. arXiv:2304.01157 (April 2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.01157
[28]
Tanay Singhal and Oliver Schneider. 2021. Juicy haptic design: Vibrotactile embellishments can improve player experience in games. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11.
[29]
Jonathan Smallwood and Jonathan W. Schooler. 2006. The Restless Mind. Psychological bulletin 132 6 (2006), 946–958.
[30]
Daniel Smilek, Jonathan SA Carriere, and J Allan Cheyne. 2010. Out of mind, out of sight: Eye blinking as indicator and embodiment of mind wandering. Psychological science 21, 6 (2010), 786–789.
[31]
Ari Ezra Waldman. 2020. Cognitive biases, dark patterns, and the ‘privacy paradox’. Current opinion in psychology 31 (2020), 105–109.

Index Terms

  1. Encouraging Disengagement: Using Eye Tracking to Examine Attention with Different Levels of Juicy Design

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      AVI '24: Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces
      June 2024
      578 pages
      ISBN:9798400717642
      DOI:10.1145/3656650
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 03 June 2024

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. attention
      2. design
      3. disengagement
      4. psychophysiology

      Qualifiers

      • Short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Data Availability

      Short paper video (JuicyGaze.mp4), supplemental material: methodology (JuicyEyes_AVI2024_SupplementaryMaterials.pdf) https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656650.3656694#Supplemental Material.zip
      1) Video showcasing designs and motion for the eye-tracking tasks. 2) A pdf with the study and analysis methodology. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656650.3656694#luz-vogel-juicyEyes-AVI2024-supplementalMaterials.zip

      Funding Sources

      • Waterloo-Huawei Joint Innovation Lab

      Conference

      AVI 2024

      Acceptance Rates

      AVI '24 Paper Acceptance Rate 21 of 82 submissions, 26%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 128 of 490 submissions, 26%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 65
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)65
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)17
      Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media