Upload
swenney
View
51
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation from Third InDOG Doctoral Conference in Olomouc, Czech Republic. 13. - 16. October 2014
Citation preview
EYE TRACKING IN THE GEO-DOMAIN
A PERCEPTION ON CARTOGRAPHY, NAVIGATION AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN
Research Conducted at the Landscape & CartoGIS Research Unit, Department of Geography, Ghent University
Kristien Ooms Fanny Van den HauteLien Dupont Annelies IncoulPieter Laseure Pepijn ViaenePhilippe De Maeyer Nico Van de Weghe Veerle Van Eetvelde
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
2
Eye tracking in the Geo-Domain
1. Visual impact of wind turbines in the landscape•Master Thesis Fanny Van den Haute
2. The use of eye tracking in landscape perception research•PhD Research Lien Dupont
3. Search strategies on time intervals in 1D and 2d representations•Master Thesis Pieter Laseure
4. Comparing paper and digital maps using eye tracking•Master Thesis Annelies Incoul
5. Influence of toponyms’ colours on their readability•PhD Research Rasha Deeb
6. Maps, how do users see them?•PhD & PostDoc research Kristien Ooms
7. In search of indoor landmarks •Master Thesis and PhD research Pepijn Viaene
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
VISUAL IMPACT OF WIND TURBINES IN THE LANDSCAPE
MASTER THESISFANNY VAN DEN HAUTE
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
4
Research Objective & Questions
▪Sustainable energy >> wind turbines >> spatial planning• Appropriate in the landscape?• Visual impact?
▪ Research Questions• How do people look at a landscape with wind turbines?• Is there a difference before and after placement of the wind turbines?• Is there a difference due to personal characteristics (expertise)?• Does the type of landscape play any role in this?
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
5
Research Objective & Questions
▪Stimuli•Panoramic photos•Simulations in photoshop•5 different landscape types•60 pictures in total•7 seconds free viewing
• Participants• 15 experts• 29 non-experts
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
6
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Resultaten ▪Wind turbine
• Viewed at after avg 1,5 s • 86,8 % eye catchers• 86,3% longest viewings
▪Wind turbine vs. other vertical objects• Faster• More and longer fixations• Shorter first fixation• More returned movements
1. How do people look at a landscape with wind turbines?
2. Is there a difference before and after placement of the wind turbines?
3. Is there a difference due to personal characteristics (expertise)?
4. Does the type of landscape play any role in this?
7
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
ResultatenEye catchers
• Type changes > wind turbine• Viewed at faster
Fixations• More and longer fixations• More returned movements• Cause: presence wind turbines
WIND TURBINES HAVEA VISUAL IMPACT
1. How do people look at a landscape with wind turbines?
2. Is there a difference before and after placement of the wind turbines?
3. Is there a difference due to personal characteristics (expertise)?
4. Does the type of landscape play any role in this?
8
ResultatenSimilarity• Type eye catcher> wind turbine• Type longest viewed object > wind turbine• Timing of viewings• Number of fixations
Difference• Experts shorter fixations
EXPERTISE HAS NO INFLUENCEON VIEWING PATTERN
1. How do people look at a landscape with wind turbines?
2. Is there a difference before and after placement of the wind turbines?
3. Is there a difference due to personal characteristics (expertise)?
4. Does the type of landscape play any role in this?
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
9
Resultaten Similarity
• Timing of perceiving wind turbine
Difference• Type eye catcher and object viewed at longest
- industrial and infrastructural landscapes wind turbines less dominant
• Timings of eye catcher- Woody area > hill or open rural area
TYPE OF LANDSCAPE HAS INFLUENCEON VIEWING PATTERN
1. How do people look at a landscape with wind turbines?
2. Is there a difference before and after placement of the wind turbines?
3. Is there a difference due to personal characteristics (expertise)?
4. Does the type of landscape play any role in this?
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
THE USE OF EYE-TRACKING IN LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION
RESEARCH
PHD RESEARCHLIEN DUPONT
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
11
Research Questions
Which elements in a landscape catch the attention and in which context are they most eye-catching?
Important for the location of new infrastructures
ObserverRepresentation
Landscape
Observations of landscapes are influenced by…
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
12
Research QuestionsHow do people observe landscapes in general?
•Influence of the photograph properties?‒Focal length, horizontal and vertical view angles
•Influence of the landscape characteristics?‒Degree of openness‒Degree of heterogeneity
•Influence of the social/professional background of the observer?‒Landscape experts versus novices
•Influence of type of landscape? ‒Degree of urbanisation‒Landscape experts versus novices‒Predict viewing pattern?
Exp
erim
ent
1E
xper
imen
t 2
Exp
erim
ent
3
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
13
Study design – Experiment 1 Photograph sampling
90 photographs in total
18 landscapes
Focal length
Horizontal view angle
Vertical view angle
a) Panoramic photograph
50mm 70° 20,9°
b) Standard photograph
50mm 31° 20,9°
c) Zoom 1 70mm 22,4° 15°
d) Zoom 2 100mm 15,8° 10,5°
e) Wide angle photograph
18mm 75,1° 54,3°
23 participants (geographers)
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
14
Ope
n S
emi-o
pen
Enc
lose
d
Homogeneous Heterogeneous
21 landscape expert participants
90 photographs in total
23 novice participants
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
15
Study design – Experiment 2&3
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
21 landscape expert participants
74 photographs, differing in degree of urbanisation
21 novice participants
16
Methodology
Eye tracking technology• Non-portable RED-system (SMI)
Eye tracking experiments• Random order • 5 or 10 seconds per photograph • Free-viewing
• Measured eye tracking metrics• Fixations: number, duration (ms)• Saccades: number, amplitude (°), velocity (°/s)• Derived products: focus maps
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
17
Results – Experiment 1
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
More information extraction
Shorter fixation duration
Easier information extraction
More saccades Larger saccades Faster saccades
Stronger visual exploration
More fixations Shorter saccades
Panoramic Open Less & longer fixations Less saccades
Weaker visual exploration
Homogeneous Less fixations Less & longer saccades
Weaker visual exploration
18
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Expert Novice More
fixations & saccades
Less fixations & saccades
Shorter fixations
Longer fixations
Longer scan path
Shorter scan path
Larger visual span
Smaller visual span
Smaller Voronoi
cells
Larger Vorornoi
cells
Scan paths
Focus maps
Voronoi cells
Results – Experiment 2
19
1050 x 1680 matrices
Correlation between focus maps and saliency maps?
Saliency map
Focus map
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
20
Results experiment 3
▪Significant effect of landscape type, ▪No effect of expertstatus, no significant interaction▪Non-experts’ viewing pattern is a little more predictable
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
SEARCH STRATEGIES ON TIME INTERVALS IN 1D AND 2D
REPRESENTATIONS
MASTER THESISPIETER LASEURE
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
22
Research Objective
Evaluate added value of theTriangular Model
to depict time intervals, compared to the ‘traditional’Linear Model
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
23
Relevance and Research Questions▪Importance in education:
“How to depict temporal information most efficiently?”
▪Research Questions:
•Is the TM a clearer / more efficient model than the LM?
•Do males and females search differently in these models?
•Do students and experts search differently in these models?
•Can we distinguish differences in the users search strategies; TM vs. LM?
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
24
Study Design
LM TM 25 novice participant; some removed 3 expert participants
8 stimuli & questions for LM 8 stimuli & questions for TM
Similar questions Mixed Alternate
Quantitative analyses Response time Score Fixation duration Saccadic length
Qualitative analyses
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
25
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Results: QuantitativeStudents’ response time
Students’ nr of fixations per second
GROUP nrAVG. SCORE
LM
AVG. SCORE
TMPREFERENCE
Students 25 5,48/10 8,3/10 TM (25/25)
Experts 3 4,75/10 8/10 TM (3/3)
Participants’ preference and score attributed to the modelsStudents’ fixation duration
Students’ saccadic length
Students’ score
26
Results: Qualitative
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
27
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Results: QualitativePart. Gender SCANPAD STRING
P01 M
MMBACCDEDCCCCDDEEBBBBBCBCDEDDE
EDDSWWRSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNSRWSSSSS
SSSWWSSMNSSDEEDCCDDDEFDDRSXWS
P02 F
MLAABBBBCCDDDDDDDEDEEDDDWWXSSR
RRSSSSSSSSWCDEEXWSXSSWXSSSSSSS
WSSSSSSSNSRDEBDDRSSSSSNNSSSRRM
MLRRNSSWXXXXWXDDEWSSSSSSNSNSSS
SWNSSSSS
P03 M
MMHBABBCDDCCDERWSSSSSXXIDEBBBBC
CCCDDDEESSSXXRSSSSSSSXDESRRWSSS
SNSSSSSSSD
P05 FMMLBCCCCDDDDEENXXWSSSSSSSSSSXW
RCDDCBCBBRSSSRSWWRMRLLIRRWWR
P06 FMMBBABBCDDDEEDEDEWWWWWXSSSSSS
SRSSSSSWSSSXXWSSWN
Scanpad String Similarities
28
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Results: Qualitative
COMPARING MAP READING ON PAPER AND DIGITAL MAPS
MASTER THESISANNELIES INCOUL
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
30
Introduction
▪Paper versus digital maps▪Drawbacks of digital maps:
•Resolution•Colour ranges•Dimensions
▪Same information displayed differently▪Eye tracking
•Register the users’ eye movements (Point of Regards, POR)•Users’ cognitive process
compare the users’ attentive behaviour
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
31
Study Design
▪Participants•32 Master students or researchers•Department of Geography, Ghent University•Similar domain knowledge in geography and cartography•Familiar with the design of the Belgian topographic maps
▪Stimuli•6 topographic maps on 1 : 10 000 •Regions in the Southern part of Belgium•Two similar groups of participants•Three paper and three digital maps (alternately)
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
32
Study Design
▪Task•Visual search•Locate three labels in the map image•Questionnaire
-Background information-Familiarity with the depicted regions-Search strategy
▪Apparatus and Set-up•Eye tracker: SMI RED system 120Hz•50 inch television screen•Stand alone mode
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
33
Methodology
▪Data selection•Calibration accuracy: < 1°•Tracking ratio: > 85%•Visual verification •Shift correction
Part. 1D 2P 3D 4P 5D 6P Part. 1P 2D 3P 4D 5P 6D
P01 x x x x x x P10 x x x x x
P05 x x x x x x P14 x x x x x
P07 x x x x P16 x x x x x x
P09 x x x x x x P18 x x x x x x
P11 x x x x x x P20 x x x x x x
P13 x x x x x x P22 x x x x
P15 x x x x x x P24 x x x x x x
P17 x x x x x x P28 x x x x x
P21 x x x x x P30 x x x x x x
P25 x x x x x x P32 x x x x x
P27 x x x x P34 x x x x x x
P29 x x x x x x P36 x x x x x x
P33 x x x x x
TOT. 13 11 12 12 12 12 TOT. 10 10 11 11 12 12
- At least 10 individuals for each stimulus- In total: 25 participants- 68 paper and 70 digital stimuli
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
34
Methodology
▪Creating the gridded visualisation•Areas Of Interest (AOIs)•Fixation counts and distribution•Grid of 32 x 22 cells•AOIs of 40 x 40 pixels
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
35
Results
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Mean search times(P = 0.956 > 0.05)
Fixations per second(P < 0.000)
Digital maps were less difficult to interpret than paper maps
Mean fixation duration(P = 0.210 > 0.05)
Shorter saccades digital maps
1
2
3
4
5
6
paper digital paper digital paper digital paper digital
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fixation count Fixation duration
36
Conclusion & Future Work
▪Users’ attentive behaviour on paper and digital maps▪Controlled study design▪No unidirectional conclusions concerning efficiency▪Distribution of the fixations was similar
▪No real-life situations:•Generally, digital maps are presented on smaller screens
▪Further research, taking into account (digital maps):•Different screen sizes•Interaction tools•Specific design
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
INFLUENCE OF TOPONYMS’ COLOURS ON THEIR
READABILITY
PHD RESEARCHRASHA DEEB
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
38
Research Context
▪Typography on maps•Semiotics according to Bertin•Bold, italic, shape (font), orientation, etc.
▪Preference?▪Efficiency?▪Lettering system?▪Colour?
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
39
Research Questions
▪Influence of complementary colors (background-label) on the users’ search efficiency;
▪Is this further influenced by the user’s characteristics (gender and expertise)
▪Are the users’ preference and search efficiency linked?
▪The findings are compared to the ‘traditionally’ black labels
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
40
Study Design
Color system
Design conditions Display conditions
HSV RGB CIE XYZ
Color No.
H° S% V% R G BL*
(D65)a*
(D65)b*
(D65)X Y Z
1 0, 100 100 255 0 0 69.9 95.7 77.5 76.09 40.18 4.617
2 30 100 100 255 128 0 86.0 48.6 79.7 88.28 67.98 11.92
3 60 100 100 255 255 0 121.8 -24.3 101.1 140.21 167.63 34.10
4 90 100 100 128 255 0 115.3 -90.6 90.3 81.46 145.01 33.79
5 120 100 100 0 255 0 112.3 -111.5 86.9 65.28 135.30 32.49
6 150 100 100 0 255 128 111.2 -99.6 40.6 68.50 131.85 76.55
7 180 100 100 0 255 255 116.5 -64.8 -39.4 98.45 149.03 257.74
8 210 100 100 0 128 255 70.6 20.4 -109.4 46.27 41.60 232.25
9 240 100 100 0 0 255 45.6 87.8 -148.7 33.45 14.97 222.16
10 270 100 100 128 0 255 55.5 94.3 -132.2 49.45 23.41 223.65
11 300 100 100 255 0 255 71.7 101.5 -6.3 83.62 43.21 52.4112 330 100 100 255 0 128 79.1 114.9 -92.2 109.63 55.10 225.46
Black 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0.8 -5 0 0.2 0.2
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
41
Study Design
31 participants 15 experts
- 7 females- 8 males
16 novices- 7 females- 9 males
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
42
Results
Map Number
Black Color
F P
M SD M SD1 15.932 10.603 20.955 15.622 2.077 0.1552 20.252 21.420 13.672 10.090 2.217 0.1423 18.075 13.104 17.174 13.829 0.069 0.7934 14.972 22.713 17.785 14.344 0.319 0.5745 13.814 14.905 18.299 21.648 0.089 0.7666 23.342 198.80 32.562 38.221 1.328 0.2547 20.653 14.476 14.876 13.489 2.476 0.1228 14.511 12.934 14.822 13.136 0.009 0.9279 13.501 11.750 18.277 13.847 2.144 0.14810 16.589 12.404 20.589 12.404 1.300 0.25911 26.218 25.308 16.940 12.609 0.179 0.67412 14.560 10.138 35.918 38.613 8.314 0.006
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Users’ responses (s) between black and colored labels (M= Mean, SD= Standard Deviation).
Source dfReaction Time(s)
Fixation Duration (s)
Fixation count (Fix/s)
F P F P F PCorrected Model 117 2.079 0.000 2.240 0.000 1.518 0.001
Intercept 1 354.591 0.000 535.231 0.0003343.52
00.000
Map number 23 4.519 0.000 2.756 0.000 1.930 0.000Expertise 1 1.361 0.244 0.055 0.814 0.185 0.667Gender 1 0.996 0.370 0.037 0.964 0.290 0.748Map number * Expertise 23 1.000 0.463 0.105 1.000 0.878 0.629Expertise * Gender 1 0.009 0.925 1.024 0.312 0.082 0.775Map number * Gender 44 1.037 0.410 0.244 1.000 0.679 0.944
Map number * Expertise * Gender
23 0.605 0.927 1.033 0.420 0.706 0.842
MANOVA tests Only map number (labels’ colour) significant
43
Results
▪Colour differenceΔE*ab= {(ΔL*)2+(Δa*)2+(Δb*)2}1/2 where: ΔL*= L foreground* - L background*;
Δa*= a foreground* -a background*;
Δb*= b foreground* -b background*.
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Colour difference vs. average fixation count per second
44
Results
▪Luminance differenceΔY= Y foreground –Y background
calculated from the measured Y-value in the XYZ-system
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
luminance difference vs. the target fixation duration
MAPS, HOW DO USERS SEE THEM?
PHD & POSTDOC RESEARCH KRISTIEN OOMS
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
46
Maps are … a medium to communicate
Research Aims:
How do map users
information on digital cartographic
products?
Read
Interpet
Store
Retrieve
Advice for design (syntax, semiotics)
of digital cartographic
products:
GuidelinesImplement in online
tools...
Optimise
Optimise
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
47
Maps are … visual
Eye Tracking• Evaluate maps: UCD
- Log users’ Point of Regard∙ Location∙ Duration∙ …in screen-coordinates (px)
- Combination with other methods∙ Reaction time measurements∙ Thinking alound∙ Sketch maps∙ Questionnaires∙ …
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
48
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
User studies
▪PhD ResearchBasic map design
®Expert vs. novices®Label placement
bo
rde
r-d
es
ign
tota
l-d
es
ign
ori
gin
al
vie
w
49
User studies
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
▪PhD ResearchComplex map design
Expert vs novicesAdaptations in symbologyMirroring of map objects....
50
Maps are … interactive
• ‘Maps on the Internet/Web’• Typical user interactions
- Panning- changing extent
- Zooming- changing scale & extent
• Influence on users’ cognitive processes?
Read
Interpet
Store
Retrieve
Benifical for user?e.g. memory, change blindness, …
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
51
Eye Tracking & Interactivity?
▪Georeferencing eye movement dataChanging point of origin
Applying map projection formula
Spherical Mercator(inverse)
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
52
Case Study
▪Three eye tracking systems•SMI RED 250•Tobii T120•SR Research EyeLink 1000
Panning
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
53
Case Study
▪Three eye tracking systems
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Panning
54
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
Evaluation of panning in Google Maps
▪Alteration map - satellite view
▪Panning along a route•Zoom level 13
▪Find Belgium•Zoom level 7
55
Future Work
▪Zooming?•In theory: same concept, only change in R value•Logging change in zoom levels
-Scroll wheel…
▪Other map projections?•In theory: same concept, only change in map projection formula•Example: Google Earth
-Spherical General Perspective Azimuthal projection
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
IN SEARCH OF INDOOR LANDMARKS
MASTER THESIS & PHD RESEARCHPEPIJN VIAENE
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
57
Introduction
▪What is a landmark?= a wayfinding tool
a location or a direction view-action pair
▪How to identify a landmark?•Asking observerspicture based object recognition, verbal protocols, verbal eye-catcher detection, Wizard of Oz Prototyping, picture based object description ...
•Quantifying= object + saliency
» Visual – Semantic – Structural
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
58
Study Design
thinking aloud[CTA]
[CRTA]
eye tracking[fixation locus]
[duration]
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
eye-mind hypothesissaliency = “eye catching”
59
Study Design
[CTA (x2)]
[CRTA ]
▪13 recordings
▪1924 verbalisationsegments
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
60
Study Design
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
61
Results
41 % Referral to a landmark
59 % No referral to a landmark
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
62
Results
= [59]≠ [73]Ø [89]
eye
trac
king
DP landmark category object landmark1 door (route) grey double door2 other / route indicator exhibition display3 route indicator sign (“Geography”)4 door (route) brown double door5 window window and view
6 door (route) / other pair of sticks / car batteries
7 door (route) brown doors with windows8 ornament big plant9 elevator red elevator10 poster wooden information board11 door (other) grey double door12 door (other) glass main entrance13 route indicator / other sign (“Paleontology”)14 door (other) brown double door15 window / route indicator window and view16 door (route) brown double door17 door (route) / poster single door
thin
king
alo
ud
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
63
Conclusion
For the identification of (indoor) landmarkseye tracking can provide qualitative and complete data,
in addition verbal protocols can clarify specific fixations.
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
SOME FUTURE PLANS…
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
65
Future Plans
▪Evaluation of the school’s textbooks
▪Evaluation of the new 25K symbology•Together with•1 : 20 000 1 : 25 000 •Paper maps, over whole Belgium
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
66
Future Plans
▪Evaluation of Neogeography maps
▪Evaluation of maps on different devices•Touch-interactions
InDOG – 13-16/10/2014Palacký University – Olomouc
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONQUESTIONS?