<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Triangulating Eye Movement Data of Animated Displays</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>S. Maggi</string-name>
          <email>sara.maggi@geo.uzh.ch</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>S. I. Fabrikant</string-name>
          <email>sara.fabrikant@geo.uzh.ch</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University of Zurich, Department of Geography</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH - 8057 Zurich</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="CH">Switzerland</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2014</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>27</fpage>
      <lpage>31</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>We present a cross-validation approach to assess animations of movement data. Specifically, we investigate if and how display design, data complexity and user background and training might influence participants' decision-making with animated designs. Our triangulation approach is based on eye-tracking records, galvanic skin conductance responses, and electroencephalography data. We raise data analysis issues and data synchronization challenges for discussion at the workshop relating to data integration at various resolutions. With this empirical triangulation approach, we hope to better understand user decision-making with animated displays, and aim to develop sound animation design guidelines.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Animation</kwd>
        <kwd>movement data</kwd>
        <kwd>decision-making</kwd>
        <kwd>human-subject experiment</kwd>
        <kwd>eye tracking</kwd>
        <kwd>electroencephalography</kwd>
        <kwd>galvanic skin response</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>
        The need to more deeply understand how participants make decisions with animated
displays representing moving objects is the main motivation of our study. The current
lack of empirically founded design choices, and our still limited knowledge about
cognitive and emotional processes involved in task-related decision-making with
animations hinder the development of effective and efficient animated displays [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref7">7,1</xref>
        ]. Despite
these constrains, spatio-temporal data are increasingly depicted and explored with
dynamic visual analytics displays. This might be because intuitively moving objects seem
adequately represented with congruent movement changes over time in animated
displays, and thus pattern recognition might be facilitated compared with static displays
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>In this work in progress paper, we introduce a human-subject experiment aimed to
examine how map-related (i.e., animation design type), data-related (i.e., data
complexity and data context) and user-related factors (i.e., individual and group
differences) might affect information exploration and decision making with animated
displays in high-risk decision-making contexts. This user-study aims to systematically
evaluate current semi-static and novel continuous Air Traffic Control (ATC) radar
displays across ATC expert and ATC novice decision makers. We collected data from four
different sources, i.e., eye movement data, galvanic skin responses (GSR),
electroencephalography (EEG), and responses from standard questionnaires.
We present our proposed research framework based on data triangulation and detail our
cross-validation analysis process and related methodological challenges as a discussion
basis for the workshop, to get additional feedback for further analysis refinement. At
the meeting, we also intend to present a subset of preliminary results emerging from
the proposed methodological triangulation analysis.
2
2.1</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Methods</title>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Experimental design and procedure</title>
        <p>We designed a human-subject experiment according to a mixed factorial design
considering how users’ cognitive processes and emotional states might inter-relate with
display design choices. Our experiment stimuli are based on simplified French ATC
radar screens, in which aircraft positions are updated every four seconds. We aim to
compare these currently employed semi-static displays with novel continuously
animated displays, and elicit if and how the above-mentioned (i.e., map-related,
data-related, and user-related) factors might influence participants’ visuo-spatial
decisionmaking.</p>
        <p>
          The experiment was conducted with eighteen ATC experts at the Ecole Nationale de
l'Aviation Civile (ENAC) in Toulouse and nineteen ATC novices at Temple University
in Philadelphia according to a between-subject design. The experiment task consisted
of watching aircrafts (four or eight) moving in the same direction, but at different
speeds, in a series of randomized semi-static (N=16) and continuous animations
(N=16). Figure 1 shows the employed data collection equipment set up at ENAC in
Toulouse.
Participants were asked to detect the accelerating aircraft as soon as possible per mouse
click. Stimuli were shown on a color monitor screen at 1920x1200 spatial resolution.
The animated portion of the experiment took on average 16 minutes. We recoded
participants’ eye movements using a Tobii TX300 eye tracker, coupled with a mobile
galvanic skin conductance response (GSR) recorder1. Participants’ brain activity was
monitored by means of a mobile electroencephalograph2. We also collected written
responses with a Short Stress State Questionnaire (SSSQ) [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ] and additional background
information.
2.2
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Psycho-physiological data collection</title>
        <p>
          We are currently analyzing participants’ cognitive states by examining the frequencies
of the recorded EEG signals, and the GSR across animation designs, data complexity,
and other user factors. For example, EEG signals with high frequencies and low
amplitudes can be triggered by aroused participants, suggesting both alerted cognitive and
motivated emotional states. Conversely, less motivated and engaged participants should
exhibit EEG signals at a lower frequency, but with higher amplitudes [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ]. These
psycho-physiological data can be cross-validated with participants’ self-reports collected
with the SSSQ questionnaire (i.e., engagement, distress, and worry). Figure 2 shows a
participant’s GSR, processed with the BIOPAC3 software.
1 Smartband by http://www.bodymonitor.de
2 EPOC by http://emotiv.com/
3 BIOPAC by http://www.biopac.com/
depicts the time line of GSR recordings, along which specific events have been marked
up. Event-related potentials (ERP) are represented as blue drop symbols, that is, where
significant changes in SCL occurred. The red columns indicate the time and duration
of specific viewing events (i.e., the 16 animated stimuli). The red lines within each
stimulus viewing event indicates the moment the participant clicked into the display to
indicate target aircraft detection.
2.3
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>Methodological triangulation of gaze data with GSR and EEG</title>
        <p>
          To further investigate how psycho-physiological responses might interact with display
design during high-risk decision making with animated displays, we intend to combine
collected gaze data with GSR and EEG records. The purpose of this analysis is to
examine how external stimulus features or events (e.g., perceived visual cues) might
interact with internal cognitive and emotional states. The event-related potentials (ERP)
analysis seems useful here [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ]. Specifically, we intend to examine participants’ saccadic
eye-movement-related potentials (SERP) and eye-fixation-related potentials (EFRP) to
triangulate viewers’ arousal states, brain activity, and eye movement behaviors when
making visuo-spatial decisions with animated displays.
2.4
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-4">
        <title>Methodological Challenges</title>
        <p>
          We identified the following methodological challenges related to our proposed data
triangulation approach, which we would like to discuss at the workshop:
 How do we effectively synchronize triangulated data detectable at different signal
latency durations (i.e., time between stimulus and event-related response)? For
example, event-related potentials of GSR occur between 1–5s after an event [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
          ],
recorded eye-fixations have a duration of about 200-300ms (for visual stimuli) and
3080ms for saccades, respectively. EEG ERP (P300 = related to decision-making) are
elicited at about 250-500ms after a stimulus [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ].
 How do we effectively synchronize triangulated data recorded at different temporal
resolutions? For example, eye movement data can be recorded with a sampling rate
of 300Hz, compared to 2048Hz for EEG and 10Hz for mobile GSR, respectively.
 How do we effectively and efficiently compare participants’ scan paths with
randomly moving AOIs (i.e., sequence analysis)? For example, tested aircrafts started
to move at randomly selected starting points in the display, to avoid potential
learning effects, and consequently aircraft (AOI) inter-distances change randomly across
stimuli.
3
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Summary and Outlook</title>
      <p>
        We present our long-term empirical research framework to assess animated visual
displays including eye movement analysis, triangulated with psycho-physiological (e.g.,
GSR and EEG) response data. We intend to investigate emotional and cognitive state
variations across display design conditions, data complexity and context, and across
users with different training and spatial abilities. The proposed methodological
triangulation might enable us to better understand how users’ individual differences,
cognitive, perceptual, and emotional states might influence their visuo-spatial
decision-making with animated displays. Further analysis might include the relationship between
participants’ arousal intensity and their affective states (i.e., positive and negative
valence, such as engagement, joy, stress, boredom, etc.) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Once we more deeply understand how cognitive and emotional states might interact
with display design choices during visuo-spatial decision-making, we are able to
develop display design guidelines to support effective and efficient visuo-spatial decision
making with perceptually salient, cognitively supportive, and emotionally engaging
graphic displays.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Acknowledgment</title>
      <p>We cordially thank all test participants from ENAC (France) and Temple University
(USA) for their participation in the experiment. We also thank Christophe Hurter,
JeanPaul Imbert and Maxime Cordeil at ENAC, as well as Tim Shipley and Kelly Bower at
Temple University for their precious collaboration and continued support for the
development and conduction of our user study.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fabrikant</surname>
            <given-names>SI</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al.,
          <year>2008</year>
          ,
          <article-title>Novel Method to Measure Inference Affordance in Static Small Multiple Displays Representing Dynamic Processes</article-title>
          .
          <source>The Cartographic Journal</source>
          ,
          <volume>45</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>201</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>215</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Barrett</surname>
            <given-names>LF</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Russell</surname>
            <given-names>JA</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>1999</year>
          , Structure of Current Affect.
          <source>Current Directions in Psychological Science</source>
          ,
          <volume>8</volume>
          :
          <fpage>10</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>14</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Figner</surname>
            <given-names>B</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Murphy</surname>
            <given-names>RO</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          ,
          <article-title>Using Skin Conductance in Judgment and Decision Making Research</article-title>
          . In:
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schulte-Mecklenbeck</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kuehberger</surname>
            <given-names>A</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ranyard</surname>
            <given-names>R</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , editors.
          <source>A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research</source>
          . New York: Psychology Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Helton</surname>
            <given-names>WS</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          ,
          <article-title>Validation of a Short Stress State Questionnaire</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society</source>
          ,
          <volume>48</volume>
          (
          <issue>11</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>1238</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1242</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Holmqvist</surname>
            <given-names>K</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al.,
          <year>2011</year>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Eye</given-names>
            <surname>Tracking</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures</article-title>
          . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Luck</surname>
            <given-names>SJ</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          ,
          <article-title>An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique</article-title>
          . Cambridge: MIT Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tversky</surname>
            <given-names>B</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al.,
          <year>2002</year>
          , Animation: Can It Facilitate?.
          <source>International Journal of Human Computer Studies</source>
          ,
          <volume>57</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>247</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>262</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ware</surname>
            <given-names>C</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          , Information Visualization:
          <article-title>Perception for Design</article-title>
          . San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>