Latency guidelines for touchscreen virtual button feedback

Touchscreens are very widely used, especially in mobile phones. They feature many interaction methods, pressing a virtual button being one of the most popular ones. In addition to an inherent visual feedback, virtual button can provide audio and tactile feedback. Since mobile phones are essentially computers, the processing causes latencies in interaction. However, it has not been known, if the latency is an issue in mobile touchscreen virtual button interaction, and what the latency recommendations for visual, audio and tactile feedback are. The research in this thesis has investigated multimodal latency in mobile touchscreen virtual button interaction. For the first time, an affordable, but accurate tool was built to measure all three feedback latencies in touchscreens. For the first time, simultaneity perception of touch and feedback, as well as the effect of latency on virtual button perceived quality has been studied and thresholds found for both unimodal and bimodal feedback. The results from these studies were combined as latency guidelines for the first time. These guidelines enable interaction designers to establish requirements for mobile phone engineers to optimise the latencies on the right level. The latency measurement tool consisted of a high-speed camera, a microphone and an accelerometer for visual, audio and tactile feedback measurements. It was built with off-the-shelf components and, in addition, it was portable. Therefore, it could be copied at low cost or moved wherever needed. The tool enables touchscreen interaction designers to validate latencies in their experiments, making their results more valuable and accurate. The tool could benefit the touchscreen phone manufacturers, since it enables engineers to validate latencies during development of mobile phones. The tool has been used in mobile phone R&D within Nokia Corporation and for validation of a research device within the University of Glasgow. The guidelines established for unimodal feedback was as follows: visual feedback latency should be between 30 and 85 ms, audio between 20 and 70 ms and tactile between 5 and 50 ms. The guidelines were found to be different for bimodal feedback: visual feedback latency should be 95 and audio 70 ms when the feedback was visual-audio, visual 100 and tactile 55 ms when the feedback was visual-tactile and tactile 25 and audio 100 ms when the feedback was tactile-audio. These guidelines will help engineers and interaction designers to select and optimise latencies to be low enough, but not too low. Designers using these guidelines will make sure that most of the users will both perceive the feedback as simultaneous with their touch and experience high quality virtual buttons. The results from this thesis show that latency has a remarkable effect on touchscreen virtual buttons, and it is a key part of virtual button feedback design. The novel results enable researchers, designers and engineers to master the effect of latencies in research and development. This will lead to more accurate and reliable research results and help mobile phone manufacturers make better products

Beyond speech intelligibility and speech quality: measuring listening effort with an auditory flanker task

If listening to speech against a background of noise increases listening effort, then the effectiveness of a speech technology designed to reduce background noise could be measured by the reduction in listening effort it provides. Reports of increased listening effort in environments with greater background noise have been linked to accompanying decreases in performance (e.g., slower responses and more errors) which are commonly attributed to the increased demands placed on limited cognitive resources in these challenging listening environments, particularly when performing more than one task. As these cognitive resources are also implicated in maintaining attention and reducing distraction, the work reported here proposes to measure listening effort by measuring changes in distraction while listening to noisy and digitally-noise-reduced speech using an auditory flanker task designed to simulate an everyday situation: listening on the telephone. Over a series of experiments this novel listening effort measure is enhanced by the inclusion of a simultaneous memory task and contrasted with listening effort ratings and conventional speech technology evaluation measures (intelligibility and speech quality). However, while there are indications that increased background noise can increase listening effort and digital noise reduction fails to reverse this effect, the results are not consistent. These equivocal results are discussed in light of the recent surge of interest in listening effort research