upa - home page JUS - Journal of usability studies
An international peer-reviewed journal

Reliability of Self-Reported Awareness Measures Based on Eye Tracking

William Albert and Donna Tedesco

Journal of Usability Studies, Volume 5, Issue 2, Feb 2010, pp. 50 - 64

Article Contents


Methods

Two experiments were conducted with a total of 80 participants (46 females and 34 males). Participants were randomly split into two groups of 40: one group using an eye tracking system (ET), and one group not using an eye tracking system (NET). The procedure for each participant was as follows:

Each participant was then asked 1 of 2 questions about the area outlined in red (the highlighted area), herein referred to as Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. For Experiment 1, 40 participants were asked “Tell us whether you noticed each highlighted area, on a 3-point scale”:

For Experiment 2, 40 participants were asked “How much time did you spend looking at the highlighted area?” The participants were asked to respond to this question using a 5-point scale, with 1 representing not spending any time at all looking at an element and 5 representing spending a long time looking at an element.

Each participant in an experiment group was given the same question for all homepages. There were, therefore, 40 participants each in Experiments 1 and 2 (including 20 eye tracking and 20 non-eye tracking for both experiments) (see Table 1). After the participant answered the question for each of the two elements on the test screenshot homepage, s/he manually advanced the screenshot to the next timed study screenshot homepage. Each participant went through the same process for all 20 homepages and 2 elements per page, for a total of 40 elements per participant. The study took approximately 15 minutes per participant.

Table 1. Number of Participants for Each Experiment and Eye Tracking Condition

Table 1

There was a deliberate effort to choose different types of elements, as it was possible that the reliability for self-reported awareness was better for certain types of elements. Specifically, we wanted to compare elements that were based on image (i.e., advertisement or picture), navigation, and function (requiring some interaction such as a search box). Figure 1 is an example of both the study screenshot and test screenshot for The Weather Channel homepage. The two elements highlighted include a picture advertisement and a functional search feature.

Table 2

Figure 1. Study screenshot (left) and test screenshot (right) for the homepage of The Weather Channel, showing elements bounded by a thick red rectangle

Each participant sat approximately 27” from a 17” wide monitor. The stimuli varied in visual angles. Typical square-shaped stimuli (similar to the advertisement on the right side of Figure 1) subtended 5° vertical and 5° horizontal. Typical elongated stimuli (similar to the search box at the top of Figure 1) subtended 2° vertical and 9° horizontal. All participants were given two free movie passes at the conclusion of the study.

Memory Test

Aside from comparing participants’ responses with eye tracking data, we wanted to incorporate a memory test as another way to measure the reliability of participants’ responses. For 7 of the 40 elements (each on a separate homepage), we swapped a new element into the exact location on the test screenshot where the original element had appeared on the study screenshot. These new elements were mixed in with all the others, and participants were not told about them until the end of the study. This was executed in both experiments, as well as for both the eye tracking and non-eye tracking conditions. Figure 2 shows an example of an element on the eBay study screenshot, and the new element replacing it on the test screenshot.

During the study, only a few participants remarked that the visual elements appeared to have changed from one screen to the next. In these cases, the moderator did not acknowledge nor deny the fact that an element may have changed. At the conclusion of the study, participants were told that some of the elements did change from one screen to the next. None of the participants reported any negative comments about this aspect of the study.

Figure 2

Figure 2. The study screenshot for the eBay homepage (left) and the test screenshot for the eBay homepage showing a “fake” element (“sold out tickets”)

Previous | Next