Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Sense of Agency and User Experience: Is There a Link?

Published: 31 March 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Sense of control is increasingly used as a measure of quality in human-computer interaction. Control has been investigated mainly at a high level, using subjective questionnaire data, but also at a low level, using objective data on participants’ sense of agency. However, it remains unclear how differences in higher level, experienced control reflect lower level sense of control. We study that link in two experiments. In the first one we measure the low-level sense of agency with button, touchpad, and on-skin input. The results show a higher sense of agency with on-skin input. In the second experiment, participants played a simple game controlled with the same three inputs. We find that on-skin input results in both increased sense and experience of control compared to touchpad input. However, the corresponding difference is not found between on-skin and button input, whereas the button performed better in the experiment task. These results suggest that other factors of user experience spill over to the experienced control at rates that overcome differences in the sense of control. We discuss the implications for using subjective measures about the sense of control in evaluating qualities of interaction.

References

[1]
Zeynep Barlas and Stefan Kopp. 2018. Action choice and outcome congruency independently affect intentional binding and feeling of control judgments. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12 (2018), 137.
[2]
Joanna Bergstrom-Lehtovirta, David Coyle, Jarrod Knibbe, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2018. I really did that: Sense of agency with touchpad, keyboard, and on-skin interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 378.
[3]
Matthew Botvinick and Jonathan Cohen. 1998. Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391, 6669 (1998), 756–756.
[4]
Niclas Braun, Stefan Debener, Nadine Spychala, Edith Bongartz, Peter Sorös, Helge Heinrich Oskar Müller, and Alexandra Philipsen. 2018. The senses of agency and ownership: A review. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018), 535.
[5]
Patricia Ivette Cornelio Martinez, Silvana De Pirro, Chi Thanh Vi, and Sriram Subramanian. 2017. Agency in mid-air interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2426–2439.
[6]
Patricia I. Cornelio Martinez, Emanuela Maggioni, Kasper Hornbæk, Marianna Obrist, and Sriram Subramanian. 2018. Beyond the libet clock: Modality variants for agency measurements. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 541.
[7]
David Coyle, James Moore, Per Ola Kristensson, Paul Fletcher, and Alan Blackwell. 2012. I did that! measuring users’ experience of agency in their own actions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2025–2034.
[8]
Mary Czerwinski, Eric Horvitz, and Edward Cutrell. 2001. Subjective duration assessment: An implicit probe for software usability. In Proceedings of the IHM-HCI 2001 Conference. 167–170.
[9]
Nicole David, Albert Newen, and Kai Vogeley. 2008. The “sense of agency” and its underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms. Consciousness and Cognition 17, 2 (2008), 523–534.
[10]
John A. Dewey and Günther Knoblich. 2014. Do implicit and explicit measures of the sense of agency measure the same thing? PLoS One 9, 10 (2014), e110118.
[11]
Jeffrey P. Ebert and Daniel M. Wegner. 2010. Time warp: Authorship shapes the perceived timing of actions and events. Consciousness and Cognition 19, 1 (2010), 481–489.
[12]
Kai Engbert, Andreas Wohlschläger, and Patrick Haggard. 2008. Who is causing what? The sense of agency is relational and efferent-triggered. Cognition 107, 2 (2008), 693–704.
[13]
Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Axel Buchner, and Albert-Georg Lang. 2009. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41, 4 (2009), 1149–1160. DOI:
[14]
Tiare Feuchtner and Jörg Müeller. 2017. Extending the body for interaction with reality. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 5145–5157.
[15]
Tiare Feuchtner and Jörg Müller. 2018. Ownershift: Facilitating overhead interaction in virtual reality with an ownership-preserving hand space shift. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 31–43.
[16]
Mar Gonzalez-Franco and Tabitha C. Peck. 2018. Avatar embodiment. Towards a standardized questionnaire. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 (2018), 74.
[17]
Patrick Haggard, Sam Clark, and Jeri Kalogeras. 2002. Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nature Neuroscience 5, 4 (2002), 382.
[18]
Patrick Haggard and Manos Tsakiris. 2009. The experience of agency: Feelings, judgments, and responsibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18, 4 (2009), 242–246.
[19]
Takayoshi Hagiwara, Maki Sugimoto, Masahiko Inami, and Michiteru Kitazaki. 2019. Shared body by action integration of two persons: Body ownership, sense of agency, and task performance. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 954–955.
[20]
Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Proceedings of the Advances in Psychology. Elsevier, 139–183.
[21]
Marc Hassenzahl. 2004. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human-computer Interaction 19, 4 (2004), 319–349.
[22]
Marc Hassenzahl, Michael Burmester, and Franz Koller. 2003. AttrakDiff: Ein fragebogen zur messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In Proceedings of the Mensch & Computer 2003. Springer, 187–196.
[23]
Kasper Hornbæk and Effie Lai-Chong Law. 2007. Meta-analysis of correlations among usability measures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 617–626.
[24]
Shunichi Kasahara, Jun Nishida, and Pedro Lopes. 2019. Preemptive action: Accelerating human reaction using electrical muscle stimulation without compromising agency. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 643.
[25]
Shunichi Kasahara, Kazuma Takada, Jun Nishida, Kazuhisa Shibata, Shinsuke Shimojo, and Pedro Lopes. 2021. Preserving agency during electrical muscle stimulation training speeds up reaction time directly after removing EMS. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9.
[26]
Simone Kühn, Ivan Nenchev, Patrick Haggard, Marcel Brass, Jürgen Gallinat, and Martin Voss. 2011. Whodunnit? electrophysiological correlates of agency judgements. PLoS One 6, 12 (2011), 1–6. DOI:
[27]
James R. Lewis. 2018. Measuring perceived usability: The CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 34, 12 (2018), 1–9.
[28]
Benjamin Libet, Curtis A. Gleason, Elwood W. Wright, and Dennis K. Pearl. 1983. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential) the unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain 106, 3 (1983), 623–642.
[29]
Hannah Limerick, James W. Moore, and David Coyle. 2015. Empirical evidence for a diminished sense of agency in speech interfaces. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3967–3970.
[30]
Matthew R. Longo and Patrick Haggard. 2009. Sense of agency primes manual motor responses. Perception 38, 1 (2009), 69–78.
[31]
Jean-Luc Lugrin, Maximilian Ertl, Philipp Krop, Richard Klüpfel, Sebastian Stierstorfer, Bianka Weisz, Maximilian Rück, Johann Schmitt, Nina Schmidt, and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2018. Any “body” there? avatar visibility effects in a virtual reality game. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 17–24.
[32]
Antonella Maselli and Mel Slater. 2013. The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7 (2013), 83.
[33]
Rin Minohara, Wen Wen, Shunsuke Hamasaki, Takaki Maeda, Motoichiro Kato, Hiroshi Yamakawa, Atsushi Yamashita, and Hajime Asama. 2016. Strength of intentional effort enhances the sense of agency. Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016), 1165.
[34]
James Moore and Patrick Haggard. 2008. Awareness of action: Inference and prediction. Consciousness and Cognition 17, 1 (2008), 136–144.
[35]
James Moore, Christoph Teufel, Naresh Subramaniam, Gregory Davis, and Paul Fletcher. 2013. Attribution of intentional causation influences the perception of observed movements: Behavioral evidence and neural correlates. Frontiers in Psychology 4 (2013), 23. DOI:
[36]
James W. Moore. 2016. What is the sense of agency and why does it matter? Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016), 1272.
[37]
James W. Moore, D Middleton, Patrick Haggard, and Paul C. Fletcher. 2012. Exploring implicit and explicit aspects of sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition 21, 4 (2012), 1748–1753.
[38]
Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann.
[39]
Dario Pittera, Elia Gatti, and Marianna Obrist. 2019. I’m sensing in the rain: Spatial incongruity in visual-tactile mid-air stimulation can elicit ownership in VR users. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15.
[40]
S. K. Poonian and Ross Cunnington. 2013. Intentional binding in self-made and observed actions. Experimental Brain Research 229, 3 (2013), 419–427. DOI:
[41]
Nina Rosa, Remco C. Veltkamp, Wolfgang Hürst, Tanja Nijboer, Carolien Gilbers, and Peter Werkhoven. 2019. The supernumerary hand illusion in augmented reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 16, 2 (2019), 1–20.
[42]
Naho Saito, Keisuke Takahata, Toshiya Murai, and Hidehiko Takahashi. 2015. Discrepancy between explicit judgement of agency and implicit feeling of agency: Implications for sense of agency and its disorders. Consciousness and Cognition 37 (2015), 1–7. DOI:
[43]
Jeff Sauro and James R. Lewis. 2009. Correlations among prototypical usability metrics: Evidence for the construct of usability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1609–1618. DOI:
[44]
Ben Shneiderman. 1983. Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. Computer16, 8 (1983), 57–69.
[45]
Ben Shneiderman. 2010. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson Education India.
[46]
Matthis Synofzik, Gottfried Vosgerau, and Albert Newen. 2008. Beyond the comparator model: A multifactorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and Cognition 17, 1 (2008), 219–239.
[47]
Paul van Schaik, Marc Hassenzahl, and Jonathan Ling. 2012. User-Experience from an inference perspective. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 19, 2 (2012), 25 pages. DOI:
[48]
Johann Wentzel, Greg d’Eon, and Daniel Vogel. 2020. Improving virtual reality ergonomics through reach-bounded non-linear input amplification. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Understanding Instant Social Control of Shared Devices in Public Spaces: A Field TrialProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36785928:3(1-33)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Immersive Analytics: The Influence of Flow, Sense of Agency, and Presence on Performance and SatisfactionProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36611448:EICS(1-27)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Who did it? How User Agency is influenced by Visual Properties of Generated ImagesProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676335(1-17)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 29, Issue 4
August 2022
469 pages
ISSN:1073-0516
EISSN:1557-7325
DOI:10.1145/3514186
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 31 March 2022
Accepted: 01 October 2021
Revised: 01 August 2021
Received: 01 July 2020
Published in TOCHI Volume 29, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. User experience
  2. agency
  3. on-skin input

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)851
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)37
Reflects downloads up to 10 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Understanding Instant Social Control of Shared Devices in Public Spaces: A Field TrialProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36785928:3(1-33)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Immersive Analytics: The Influence of Flow, Sense of Agency, and Presence on Performance and SatisfactionProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36611448:EICS(1-27)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Who did it? How User Agency is influenced by Visual Properties of Generated ImagesProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676335(1-17)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Exploring Shared Bodily Control: Designing Augmented Human Systems for Intra- and Inter-CorporealityProceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 202410.1145/3652920.3653037(318-323)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2024
  • (2024)The AI Ghostwriter Effect: When Users do not Perceive Ownership of AI-Generated Text but Self-Declare as AuthorsACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/363787531:2(1-40)Online publication date: 5-Feb-2024
  • (2024) Examining the Use of DanMu for Crowdsourcing Control in Virtual Gatherings International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2024.2375700(1-19)Online publication date: 18-Jul-2024
  • (2023)How does HCI Understand Human Agency and Autonomy?Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3580651(1-18)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Effects of Display Response Latency on Brain Activity During Device OperationIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2023.326265811(34860-34869)Online publication date: 2023
  • (2023)Effect of Reaching Movement Modulation on Experience of Control in Virtual RealityInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2023.2290382(1-18)Online publication date: 11-Dec-2023
  • (2023)An Empirical Framework for Understanding a Player’s Sense of Agency in GamesInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2023.224128640:19(5717-5736)Online publication date: 6-Aug-2023
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

Full Text

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media