Multimodal agent interfaces and system architectures for health and fitness companions

Multimodal conversational spoken dialogues using physical and virtual agents provide a potential interface to motivate and support users in the domain of health and fitness. In this paper we present how such multimodal conversational Companions can be implemented to support their owners in various pervasive and mobile settings. In particular, we focus on different forms of multimodality and system architectures for such interfaces

Contex-aware gestures for mixed-initiative text editings UIs

This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Interacting with computers following peer review. The version of record is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu019[EN] This work is focused on enhancing highly interactive text-editing applications with gestures. Concretely, we study Computer Assisted Transcription of Text Images (CATTI), a handwriting transcription system that follows a corrective feedback paradigm, where both the user and the system collaborate efficiently to produce a high-quality text transcription. CATTI-like applications demand fast and accurate gesture recognition, for which we observed that current gesture recognizers are not adequate enough. In response to this need we developed MinGestures, a parametric context-aware gesture recognizer. Our contributions include a number of stroke features for disambiguating copy-mark gestures from handwritten text, plus the integration of these gestures in a CATTI application. It becomes finally possible to create highly interactive stroke-based text-editing interfaces, without worrying to verify the user intent on-screen. We performed a formal evaluation with 22 e-pen users and 32 mouse users using a gesture vocabulary of 10 symbols. MinGestures achieved an outstanding accuracy (<1% error rate) with very high performance (<1 ms of recognition time). We then integrated MinGestures in a CATTI prototype and tested the performance of the interactive handwriting system when it is driven by gestures. Our results show that using gestures in interactive handwriting applications is both advantageous and convenient when gestures are simple but context-aware. Taken together, this work suggests that text-editing interfaces not only can be easily augmented with simple gestures, but also may substantially improve user productivity.This work has been supported by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Program (tranScriptorium: FP7- ICT-2011-9, project 600707 and CasMaCat: FP7-ICT-2011-7, project 287576). It has also been supported by the Spanish MINECO under grant TIN2012-37475-C02-01 (STraDa), and the Generalitat Valenciana under grant ISIC/2012/004 (AMIIS).Leiva, LA.; Alabau, V.; Romero Gómez, V.; Toselli, AH.; Vidal, E. (2015). Contex-aware gestures for mixed-initiative text editings UIs. Interacting with Computers. 27(6):675-696. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu019S675696276Alabau V. Leiva L. A. Transcribing Handwritten Text Images with a Word Soup Game. Proc. Extended Abstr. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI EA) 2012.Alabau V. Rodríguez-Ruiz L. Sanchis A. Martínez-Gómez P. Casacuberta F. On Multimodal Interactive Machine Translation Using Speech Recognition. Proc. Int. Conf. Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI). 2011a.Alabau V. Sanchis A. Casacuberta F. Improving On-Line Handwritten Recognition using Translation Models in Multimodal Interactive Machine Translation. Proc. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics (ACL) 2011b.Alabau, V., Sanchis, A., & Casacuberta, F. (2014). Improving on-line handwritten recognition in interactive machine translation. Pattern Recognition, 47(3), 1217-1228. doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2013.09.035Anthony L. Wobbrock J. O. A Lightweight Multistroke Recognizer for User Interface Prototypes. Proc. Conf. Graph. Interface (GI). 2010.Anthony L. Wobbrock J. O. N-Protractor: a Fast and Accurate Multistroke Recognizer. Proc. Conf. Graph. Interface (GI) 2012.Anthony L. Vatavu R.-D. Wobbrock J. O. Understanding the Consistency of Users' Pen and Finger Stroke Gesture Articulation. Proc. Conf. Graph. Interface (GI). 2013.Appert C. Zhai S. Using Strokes as Command Shortcuts: Cognitive Benefits and Toolkit Support. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Fact. Comput. Syst. (CHI) 2009.Bahlmann C. Haasdonk B. Burkhardt H. On-Line Handwriting Recognition with Support Vector Machines: A Kernel Approach. Proc. Int. Workshop Frontiers Handwriting Recognition (IWFHR). 2001.Bailly G. Lecolinet E. Nigay L. Flower Menus: a New Type of Marking Menu with Large Menu Breadth, within Groups and Efficient Expert Mode Memorization. Proc.Work. Conf. Adv. Vis. Interfaces (AVI) 2008.Balakrishnan R. Patel P. The PadMouse: Facilitating Selection and Spatial Positioning for the Non-Dominant Hand. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI). 1998.Bau O. Mackay W. E. Octopocus: A Dynamic Guide for Learning Gesture-Based Command Sets. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST) 2008.Belaid A. Haton J. A syntactic approach for handwritten formula recognition. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1984;6:105-111.Bosch V. Bordes-Cabrera I. Munoz P. C. Hernández-Tornero C. Leiva L. A. Pastor M. Romero V. Toselli A. H. Vidal E. Transcribing a XVII Century Handwritten Botanical Specimen Book from Scratch. Proc. Int. Conf. Digital Access Textual Cultural Heritage (DATeCH). 2014.Buxton W. The natural language of interaction: a perspective on non-verbal dialogues. INFOR 1988;26:428-438.Cao X. Zhai S. Modeling Human Performance of Pen Stroke Gestures. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI). 2007.Castro-Bleda M. J. España-Boquera S. Llorens D. Marzal A. Prat F. Vilar J. M. Zamora-Martinez F. Speech Interaction in a Multimodal Tool for Handwritten Text Transcription. Proc. Int. Conf. Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI) 2011.Connell S. D. Jain A. K. Template-based on-line character recognition. Pattern Recognition 2000;34:1-14.Costagliola G. Deufemia V. Polese G. Risi M. A Parsing Technique for Sketch Recognition Systems. Proc. 2004 IEEE Symp. Vis. Lang. Hum. Centric Comput. (VLHCC). 2004.Culotta, A., Kristjansson, T., McCallum, A., & Viola, P. (2006). Corrective feedback and persistent learning for information extraction. Artificial Intelligence, 170(14-15), 1101-1122. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2006.08.001Deepu V. Madhvanath S. Ramakrishnan A. Principal Component Analysis for Online Handwritten Character Recognition. Proc. Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition (ICPR). 2004.Delaye A. Sekkal R. Anquetil E. Continuous Marking Menus for Learning Cursive Pen-Based Gestures. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. User Interfaces (IUI) 2011.Dimitriadis Y. Coronado J. Towards an art-based mathematical editor that uses on-line handwritten symbol recognition. Pattern Recognition 1995;8:807-822.El Meseery M. El Din M. F. Mashali S. Fayek M. Darwish N. Sketch Recognition Using Particle Swarm Algorithms. Proc. 16th IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process. (ICIP). 2009.Goldberg D. Goodisman A. Stylus User Interfaces for Manipulating Text. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST) 1991.Goldberg D. Richardson C. Touch-Typing with a Stylus. Proc. INTERCHI'93 Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. 1993.Stevens, M. E. (1968). Selected pattern recognition projects in Europe. Pattern Recognition, 1(2), 103-118. doi:10.1016/0031-3203(68)90002-2Hardock G. Design Issues for Line Driven Text Editing/ Annotation Systems. Proc. Conf. Graph. Interface (GI). 1991.Hardock G. Kurtenbach G. Buxton W. A Marking Based Interface for Collaborative Writing. Proc.ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST) 1993.Hinckley K. Baudisch P. Ramos G. Guimbretiere F. Design and Analysis of Delimiters for Selection-Action Pen Gesture Phrases in Scriboli. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI). 2005.Hong J. I. Landay J. A. SATIN: A Toolkit for Informal Ink-Based Applications. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST) 2000.Horvitz E. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI). 1999.Huerst W. Yang J. Waibel A. Interactive Error Repair for an Online Handwriting Interface. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI) 2010.Jelinek F. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1998. Statistical Methods for Speech Recognition.Johansson S. Atwell E. Garside R. Leech G. The Tagged LOB Corpus, User's Manual. Norwegian Computing Center for the Humanities. 1996.Karat C.-M. Halverson C. Horn D. Karat J. Patterns of Entry and Correction in Large Vocabulary Continuous Speech Recognition Systems. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI). 1999.Kerrick, D. D., & Bovik, A. C. (1988). Microprocessor-based recognition of handprinted characters from a tablet input. Pattern Recognition, 21(5), 525-537. doi:10.1016/0031-3203(88)90011-8Koschinski M. Winkler H. Lang M. Segmentation and Recognition of Symbols within Handwritten Mathematical Expressions. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP). 1995.Kosmala A. Rigoll G. On-Line Handwritten Formula Recognition Using Statistical Methods. Proc. Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition (ICPR) 1998.Kristensson P. O. Discrete and continuous shape writing for text entry and control. 2007. Ph.D. Thesis, Linköping University, Sweden.Kristensson P. O. Denby L. C. Text Entry Performance of State of the Art Unconstrained Handwriting Recognition: a Longitudinal User Study. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI). 2009.Kristensson P. O. Denby L. C. Continuous Recognition and Visualization of Pen Strokes and Touch-Screen Gestures. Proc. Eighth Eurograph. Symp. Sketch-Based Interfaces Model. (SBIM) 2011.Kristensson P. O. Zhai S. SHARK2: A Large Vocabulary Shorthand Writing System for Pen-Based Computers. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST). 2004.Kurtenbach G. P. The design and evaluation of marking menus. 1991. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.Kurtenbach G. P. Buxton W. Issues in Combining Marking and Direct Manipulation Techniques. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST). 1991.Kurtenbach G. Buxton W. User Learning and Performance with Marking Menus. Proc. Extended Abstr. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI EA) 1994.Kurtenbach, G., Sellen, A., & Buxton, W. (1993). An Empirical Evaluation of Some Articulatory and Cognitive Aspects of Marking Menus. Human-Computer Interaction, 8(1), 1-23. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0801_1LaLomia M. User Acceptance of Handwritten Recognition Accuracy. Proc. Extended Abstr. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI EA). 1994.Leiva L. A. Romero V. Toselli A. H. Vidal E. Evaluating an Interactive–Predictive Paradigm on Handwriting Transcription: A Case Study and Lessons Learned. Proc. 35th Annu. IEEE Comput. Softw. Appl. Conf. (COMPSAC) 2011.Leiva L. A. Alabau V. Vidal E. Error-Proof, High-Performance, and Context-Aware Gestures for Interactive Text Edition. Proc. Extended Abstr. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI EA). 2013.Li Y. Protractor: A Fast and Accurate Gesture Recognizer. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI) 2010.Li W. Hammond T. Using Scribble Gestures to Enhance Editing Behaviors of Sketch Recognition Systems. Proc. Extended Abstr. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI EA). 2012.Liao C. Guimbretière F. Hinckley K. Hollan J. Papiercraft: a gesture-based command system for interactive paper. ACM Trans. Comput.–Hum. Interaction (TOCHI) 2008;14:18:1-18:27.Liu P. Soong F. K. Word Graph Based Speech Rcognition Error Correction by Handwriting Input. Proc. Int. Conf. Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI). 2006.Long A. Landay J. Rowe L. Implications for a Gesture Design Tool. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI) 1999.Long A. C. Jr. Landay J. A. Rowe L. A. Michiels J. Visual Similarity of Pen Gestures. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (CHI). 2000.MacKenzie, I. S., & Chang, L. (1999). A performance comparison of two handwriting recognizers. Interacting with Computers, 11(3), 283-297. doi:10.1016/s0953-5438(98)00030-7MacKenzie I. S. Tanaka-Ishii K. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.; 2007. Text Entry Systems: Mobility, Accessibility, Universality.MARTI, U.-V., & BUNKE, H. (2001). USING A STATISTICAL LANGUAGE MODEL TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF AN HMM-BASED CURSIVE HANDWRITING RECOGNITION SYSTEM. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 15(01), 65-90. doi:10.1142/s0218001401000848Marti, U.-V., & Bunke, H. (2002). The IAM-database: an English sentence database for offline handwriting recognition. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition, 5(1), 39-46. doi:10.1007/s100320200071Martín-Albo D. Romero V. Toselli A. H. Vidal E. Multimodal computer-assisted transcription of text images at character-level interaction. Int. J. Pattern Recogn. Artif. Intell. 2012;26:1-19.Marzinkewitsch R. Operating Computer Algebra Systems by Hand-Printed Input. Proc. Int. Symp. Symbolic Algebr. Comput. (ISSAC). 1991.Mas, J., Llados, J., Sanchez, G., & Jorge, J. A. P. (2010). A syntactic approach based on distortion-tolerant Adjacency Grammars and a spatial-directed parser to interpret sketched diagrams. Pattern Recognition, 43(12), 4148-4164. doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2010.07.003Moyle M. Cockburn A. Analysing Mouse and Pen Flick Gestures. Proc. SIGCHI-NZ Symp. Comput.–Hum. Interact. (CHINZ). 2002.Nakayama Y. A Prototype Pen-Input Mathematical Formula Editor. Proc. AACE EdMedia 1993.Ogata J. Goto M. Speech Repair: Quick Error Correction Just by Using Selection Operation for Speech Input Interface. Proc. Eurospeech. 2005.Ortiz-Martínez D. Leiva L. A. Alabau V. Casacuberta F. Interactive Machine Translation using a Web-Based Architecture. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. User Interfaces (IUI) 2010.Ortiz-Martínez D. Leiva L. A. Alabau V. García-Varea I. Casacuberta F. An Interactive Machine Translation System with Online Learning. Proc. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. (ACL). 2011.Michael Powers, V. (1973). Pen direction sequences in character recognition. Pattern Recognition, 5(4), 291-302. doi:10.1016/0031-3203(73)90022-8Raab F. Extremely efficient menu selection: Marking menus for the Flash platform. 2009. Available at http://www.betriebsraum.de/blog/2009/07/21/efficient-gesture-recognition-and-corner-finding-in-as3/ (retrieved on May 2012).Revuelta-Martínez A. Rodríguez L. García-Varea I. A Computer Assisted Speech Transcription System. Proc. Eur. Chap. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. (EACL). 2012.Revuelta-Martínez, A., Rodríguez, L., García-Varea, I., & Montero, F. (2013). Multimodal interaction for information retrieval using natural language. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 35(5), 428-441. doi:10.1016/j.csi.2012.11.002Rodríguez L. García-Varea I. Revuelta-Martínez A. Vidal E. A Multimodal Interactive Text Generation System. Proc. Int. Conf. Multimodal Interfaces Workshop Mach. Learn. Multimodal Interact. (ICMI-MLMI). 2010a.Rodríguez L. García-Varea I. Vidal E. Multi-Modal Computer Assisted Speech Transcription. Proc. Int. Conf. Multimodal Interfaces Workshop Mach. Learn. Multimodal Interact. (ICMI-MLMI) 2010b.Romero V. Leiva L. A. Toselli A. H. Vidal E. Interactive Multimodal Transcription of Text Images using a Web-Based Demo System. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. User Interfaces (IUI). 2009a.Romero V. Toselli A. H. Vidal E. Using Mouse Feedback in Computer Assisted Transcription of Handwritten Text Images. Proc. Int. Conf. Doc. Anal. Recogn. (ICDAR) 2009b.Romero V. Toselli A. H. Vidal E. Study of Different Interactive Editing Operations in an Assisted Transcription System. Proc. Int. Conf. Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI). 2011.Romero V. Toselli A. H. Vidal E. Vol. 80. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company; 2012. Multimodal Interactive Handwritten Text Transcription.Rubine, D. (1991). Specifying gestures by example. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 25(4), 329-337. doi:10.1145/127719.122753Rubine D. H. 1991b. The automatic recognition of gestures. Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Sánchez-Sáez R. Leiva L. A. Sánchez J. A. Benedí J. M. Interactive Predictive Parsing using a Web-Based Architecture. Proc. North Am. Chap. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 2010.Saund E. Fleet D. Larner D. Mahoney J. Perceptually-Supported Image Editing of Text and Graphics. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST) 2003.Shilman M. Tan D. S. Simard P. CueTIP: a Mixed-Initiative Interface for Correcting Handwriting Errors. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST). 2006.Signer B. Kurmann U. Norrie M. C. igesture: A General Gesture Recognition Framework. Proc. Int. Conf. Doc. Anal. Recogn. (ICDAR) 2007.Smithies S. Novins K. Arvo J. A handwriting-based equation editor. Proc. Conf. Graph. Interface (GI). 1999.Suhm, B., Myers, B., & Waibel, A. (2001). Multimodal error correction for speech user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 8(1), 60-98. doi:10.1145/371127.371166Tappert C. C. Mosley P. H. Recent advances in pen computing. 2001. Technical Report 166, Pace University, available: http://support.csis.pace.edu.Toselli, A. H., Romero, V., Pastor, M., & Vidal, E. (2010). Multimodal interactive transcription of text images. Pattern Recognition, 43(5), 1814-1825. doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2009.11.019Toselli A. H. Vidal E. Casacuberta F. , editors. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2011. Multimodal-Interactive Pattern Recognition and Applications.Tseng S. Fogg B. Credibility and computing technology. Commun. ACM 1999;42:39-44.Vatavu R.-D. Anthony L. Wobbrock J. O. Gestures as Point Clouds: A P Recognizer for User Interface Prototypes. Proc. Int. Conf. Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI). 2012.Vertanen K. Kristensson P. O. Parakeet: A Continuous Speech Recognition System for Mobile Touch-Screen Devices. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. User Interfaces (IUI) 2009.Vidal E. Rodríguez L. Casacuberta F. García-Varea I. Mach. Learn. Multimodal Interact., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. Vol. 4892. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. Interactive Pattern Recognition.Wang X. Li J. Ao X. Wang G. Dai G. Multimodal Error Correction for Continuous Handwriting Recognition in Pen-Based User Interfaces. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. User Interfaces (IUI). 2006.Wang L. Hu T. Liu P. Soong F. K. Efficient Handwriting Correction of Speech Recognition Errors with Template Constrained Posterior (TCP). Proc. INTERSPEECH 2008.Wobbrock J. O. Wilson A. D. Li Y. Gestures without Libraries, Toolkits or Training: A $1 Recognizer for User Interface Prototypes. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST). 2007.Wolf C. G. Morrel-Samuels P. The use of hand-drawn gestures for text editing. Int. J. Man–Mach. Stud. 1987;27:91-102.Zeleznik R. Miller T. Fluid Inking: Augmenting the Medium of Free-Form Inking with Gestures. Proc. Conf. Graph. Interface (GI). 2006.Yong Zhang, McCullough, C., Sullins, J. R., & Ross, C. R. (2010). Hand-Drawn Face Sketch Recognition by Humans and a PCA-Based Algorithm for Forensic Applications. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 40(3), 475-485. doi:10.1109/tsmca.2010.2041654Zhao S. Balakrishnan R. Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (UIST) 2004

A Comparison of Visualisation Methods for Disambiguating Verbal Requests in Human-Robot Interaction

Picking up objects requested by a human user is a common task in human-robot interaction. When multiple objects match the user's verbal description, the robot needs to clarify which object the user is referring to before executing the action. Previous research has focused on perceiving user's multimodal behaviour to complement verbal commands or minimising the number of follow up questions to reduce task time. In this paper, we propose a system for reference disambiguation based on visualisation and compare three methods to disambiguate natural language instructions. In a controlled experiment with a YuMi robot, we investigated real-time augmentations of the workspace in three conditions -- mixed reality, augmented reality, and a monitor as the baseline -- using objective measures such as time and accuracy, and subjective measures like engagement, immersion, and display interference. Significant differences were found in accuracy and engagement between the conditions, but no differences were found in task time. Despite the higher error rates in the mixed reality condition, participants found that modality more engaging than the other two, but overall showed preference for the augmented reality condition over the monitor and mixed reality conditions

Novel Multimodal Feedback Techniques for In-Car Mid-Air Gesture Interaction

This paper presents an investigation into the effects of different feedback modalities on mid-air gesture interaction for infotainment systems in cars. Car crashes and near-crash events are most commonly caused by driver distraction. Mid-air interaction is a way of reducing driver distraction by reducing visual demand from infotainment. Despite a range of available modalities, feedback in mid-air gesture systems is generally provided through visual displays. We conducted a simulated driving study to investigate how different types of multimodal feedback can support in-air gestures. The effects of different feedback modalities on eye gaze behaviour, and the driving and gesturing tasks are considered. We found that feedback modality influenced gesturing behaviour. However, drivers corrected falsely executed gestures more often in non-visual conditions. Our findings show that non-visual feedback can reduce visual distraction significantl

How the agent’s gender influence users’ evaluation of a QA system

In this paper we present the results of a pilot study investigating the effects of agents’ gender-ambiguous vs. gender-marked look on the perceived interaction quality of a multimodal question answering system. Eight test subjects interacted with three system agents, each having a feminine, masculine or gender-ambiguous look. The subjects were told each agent was representing a differently configured system. In fact, they were interacting with the same system. In the end, the subjects filled in an evaluation questionnaire and participated in an in-depth qualitative interview. The results showed that the user evaluation seemed to be influenced by the agent’s gender look: the system represented by the feminine agent achieved on average the highest evaluation scores. On the other hand, the system represented by the gender-ambiguous agent was systematically lower rated. This outcome might be relevant for an appropriate agent look, especially since many designers tend to develop gender-ambiguous characters for interactive interfaces to match various users’ preferences. However, additional empirical evidence is needed in the future to confirm our findings

Human-Computer Interaction for BCI Games: Usability and User Experience

Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) come with a lot of issues, such as delays, bad recognition, long training times, and cumbersome hardware. Gamers are a large potential target group for this new interaction modality, but why would healthy subjects want to use it? BCI provides a combination of information and features that no other input modality can offer. But for general acceptance of this technology, usability and user experience will need to be taken into account when designing such systems. This paper discusses the consequences of applying knowledge from Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) to the design of BCI for games. The integration of HCI with BCI is illustrated by research examples and showcases, intended to take this promising technology out of the lab. Future research needs to move beyond feasibility tests, to prove that BCI is also applicable in realistic, real-world settings

User Error Handling Strategies on a Non Visual Multimodal Interface: Preliminary Results from an Exploratory Study

The present study addresses two questions: On a non-visual multimodal interface for textual information browsing, (1) how prevalent is input modality switching as an error handling strategy, and (2) how much does an input modality need to fail before input modality switching occurs. The results indicate that although switching input modalities to correct errors is an expected practice on multimodal GUIs, it is not the prevalent strategy for non-visual multimodal interfaces. We believe that users are more likely to diversify their error handling strategies within a modality, if different strategies are possible, but we have not found conclusive evidence for this belief. However, our analysis suggests that the failure to switch modalities when errors occur may, in part, be due to the prevalence of alternative error handling strategies in a particular input modality, that is, the user prefers to stay in the same modality rather than assume the cognitive load of a switch