Investigation on the neurophysiological correlates of similarity cognition of digital interface color and layout

Abstract

To investigate and compare the common features and differences of the cognitive processes, during which interfaces with diverse similarities are evaluated, this article chose the color code and layout forms of digital interface to carry out further research. The study adopted the visual Oddball experimental paradigm that was based on the event-related potential technique and integrated the behavioral and event-related potential data to analyze the neural features of the cognitive process when two coding forms were individually processed. The result reveals that there were P300 components, elicited by the target stimuli, in both of the two experiment sessions. The average amplitude of P300 positively correlates the similarities between the target and standard stimuli, with its latency positively correlating the overall complexity of the stimuli. In the color experiment session, there was apparent visual mismatching negativity around 200 ms after the present of the target, which is related with the early attention. The empirical significance of conclusions drawn in this study is listed as follows: first, it can help to effectively evaluate the usability of guiding features in the digital interfaces through the investigation on visual mismatching negativity elicited in the early attention process; second, the amplitude and latency of the P300 component can be applied in the evaluation and filtering of design schemes, which is based on the similarities perceived in the iterative process and this would enhance efficiency of user interface designers.

Measuring cognitive load of digital interface combining event-related potential and BubbleView

“…In the second comparison group, there is no significant difference in the amplitude of P2 and P3b. By comparison, the difference between interface C and interface D is a slight change in the layout of multiple small icons, meanwhile the amplitude of P3b is affected by the change and difference between target stimulus and standard stimulus [ 49 ], so there is no significant difference on the amplitude of P3b in the second comparison group. In addition, there is no significant difference in the latency of P2 and P3b for each interface, indicating that the evaluation of cognitive load by the latency of ERP in P2 and P3b is unreliable [ 49 ].…”

“…The statistical analyses of repeated measures ANOVAs were used to analyze the amplitude and latency of P3b response including factors of interfaces ([interface A vs. interface B] or [interface C vs. interface D]) and horizontal electrodes’ location (central parietal vs. parietal vs. occipital) and vertical electrodes’ location (left vs. central vs. right) [ 49 ]. CP1, CPz, and CP2 (Fig.…”