Presentation on Aug 7, 2015 in the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction #HCII2015 in Los Angeles, CA, USA. The paper was presented in the Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction track in the "Novel technologies for speech, language, attention and child development" session which was chaired by Prof. Margherita Antona, Foundation for Research & Technology - Hellas (FORTH), Greece http://2015.hci.international/friday

1. Layla AlSalhie, Wea’am AlRashed and Areej AlWabil
Software Engineering Department, College of Computer and Information
Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
August 7, 2015

2. 2
@HCI_Lab
August 7, 2015

3. Sustained Attention
1. Lack of a uniformly agreed objective method for attention assessment
2. Patients need to travel to the hospital/clinic for assessment
3. Patients are often not engaged with the assessment tasks
3

4. Research Objectives
Gain an insight into the usability of technologies designed for assessing
patients' sustained attention
Evaluate the usability of a BCI-based application for sustained attention
4

5. Three interrelated Work Phases (WP)
5
Research Methodology

6. Research Methodology
WP1. Evaluating the usability of existing methods and technologies that are
being used in the field of sustained attention assessment and rehabilitation
1. Semi-structured interviews
2. Usability inspection methods on emerging technologies
6

7. WP2. Usability Engineering Process for Neurorehabilitation BCI prototype
1. Usability Engineering during the development process
2. Emotiv Epoch EEG BCI headset/Windows platform
3. Accuracy of Attention Assessment
4. Intensive testing sessions
7
Emotiv EPOC Headset
Image Source emotive.com
Research Methodology

8. User Testing – UAT & Expert Reviews
WP3. Evaluating the usability of the BCI application
with User Acceptance Testing UAT methods
Part I Users in the Context of Rehabilitations
1. Evaluation sessions in realistic user settings
2. Accuracy and reliability of
the assessment and patient engagement
3. Critical Incident Method
Part II Expert Evaluations
8
Center for ADHD children

9. Attention Assessment Technologies
9

10. Usability Evaluation Sessions
10
RATING DESCRIPTION
0 I don't agree that this is a usability problem at all
1
Cosmetic problem only: need not be fixed unless extra time is
available on project
2 Minor usability problem: fixing this should be given low priority
3
Major usability problem: important to fix, so should be given high
priority
4
Usability catastrophe: imperative to fix this before product can be
released
Nielsen’s severity scale
The evaluation process for the three attention assessment and rehabilitation
programs

11. Usability Evaluation Sessions
11

12. Heuristic Evaluation - Results
Severity {0} {1} {2} {3} {4} Total
Play Attention 1 5 9 7 0 22
Tarkeezy 2 0 13 14 1 30
Attentive I 0 0 9 13 2 24
Total 3 5 31 34 3 76
Percentage % 3.9% 6.5% 40.7% 44.7 3.9% 100%
12
Heuristic evaluation results

13. Heuristic Evaluation - Results
13
Evaluator Experience
Num of
Programs {0} {1} {2} {3} {4}
E1 High 3 3 8 15 9 0
E2 Low 3 2 0 14 22 4
E3 Low 2 4 5 12 12 2
E4 Medium 2 5 5 7 3 0
E5 Low 1 2 1 1 3 4
Usability issues per evaluators’ experience

14. Conclusion
Most usability issues were categorized as major usability problems.
The aggregate heuristic evaluation method was found to be effective as
a tool for usability inspections.
Findings suggest that this method was effective in identifying usability
issues that affect the users’ performance and subjective satisfaction.
14

15. Thank You
15
Areej AlWabil
aalwabil@ksu.edu.sa
Software Engineering Department, College of Computer and Information
Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia