emotiv as an alternative input device for the physically ...abstract when considering the emotiv...

Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED

1

Emotiv as an Alternative Input Device for the Physically Disabled

Julia M. Kester

State University of New York at Oswego


2

Abstract

When considering the Emotiv EPOC in terms of a control device, it comes off as a novelty for

the average user. People dream of controlling things with their minds, but a device that takes

time to set up and can be physically draining is not a device for everyday use. However, the

Emotiv EPOC does provide great opportunities for the physically disabled – specifically for

those with upper limb disabilities. Where they may not have been able to move a mouse with

their hands, they can now control the cursor through their head movements and/or thought

patterns. Where they could not type on a keyboard, they are now able to pull up a virtual

keyboard and push keys with the cursor, or create shortcut commands to act as keyboard

commands.

This project will use the Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset to explore the creation of art. My

main focus behind this project is to see how feasible it is to use a headset as an alternative input

device when working in the Adobe Creative Suite environment. Through this project, I aim to

test the Emotiv EPOC headset as an artistic graphic medium option for the physically disabled.

How easy is it to use the headset? How long will it take users to tire mentally, and how long

before physical fatigue sets in? Is it truly a viable alternative to a mouse or a tablet and pen?


3

Emotiv EPOC Neuroheadset

Emotiv

The Emotiv EPOC is a neuroheadset that works as a brain controlled interface (BCI).

BCIs are “devices that capture brain transmissions involved in a subject’s intention to act”

(Schwartz et al., 2006). The device has 14 sensors, which interpret signals from a user’s brain to

identify “thoughts, feelings and expressions” (Emotiv, 2012). The headset works through

electroencephalography, or EEG, which is a non-invasive way to read brain activity (Adelsen,

2011). Emotiv is consumer grade; it is a relatively inexpensive BCI device that allows users to

control things with just their mind (Nosowitz, 2011). Primarily targeted at gamers (Adelsen,

2011), the headset offers many opportunities to the non-gaming community as well.

The Emotiv EPOC has four primary features. Using the Affectiv Suite, it can interpret a

user’s emotions – both short term and over an extended period. The headset is able to identify

facial expressions such as smiling and blinking in the Expressiv Suite. Through an internal

gyroscope, the device can measure head movement – tilting and turning. Finally, and most

appealing, the device translates brain patterns into “signals that emulate traditional input

devices,” such as a mouse or keyboard (Emotiv, 2012).

There are many advantages to using the Emotiv headset over other BCI and EEG devices.

Many BCI devices are restrictive due to wiring (Stopczynski et al., 2011); the Emotiv headset,

however, is wireless and therefore offers free range of motion. BCI devices as a whole have the

potential to help the immobile by restoring movement and communication (Schwartz et al.,

2006), and ease of transport and setup will certainly be important in an everyday use setting.

Because the device is so mobile, the headset provides the ability to run inexpensive experiments


4

right from home (Adelsen, 2011). Along with this convenience, it allows for a more naturalistic

environment under which to study brain activity, something not readily available with most brain

imaging technology (Stopczynski et al., 2011). It is also important to note Emotiv’s simplicity.

Unlike traditional EEG devices, which achieve electronic signals from the brain via a conductive

paste connecting the sensors to the scalp (Wright, 2010), Emotiv uses felt sensors moistened with

saline solution.

While Emotiv has these advantages, there are many disadvantages as well. Emotiv EPOC

only uses 14 sensors, while many similar devices use four times that amount (Adelsen, 2011).

This results in less data coming in from the brain. Additionally, more powerful devices have a

sample rate of up to 1000Hz, as opposed to the 128Hz that Emotiv runs at (Adelsen, 2011). Apps

are available to users, but only the more expensive developer and research editions of the headset

can work with software outside of Emotiv’s own store. This means that, while there is a device

simulator, consumers have no way of testing or using the physical device if they choose to

develop an application for the headset. Many reviewers of the device mention having trouble

playing even simple games like Pong (Adelsen, 2011). This is probably because users likely

choose to forego full training, as training the brain to certain commands takes a fair amount of

time.

Researchers have applied the Emotiv neuroheadset’s technology in a variety of ways.

Probably the most practical is a mobile app created by a team at the Technical University of

Denmark. The team developed a brain monitoring system that displays brain activity in 3D on a

smartphone (Stopczynski et al., 2011). This application provides both useful information and

high portability. A team in Germany was able to adapt a car so that the driver could control the

car with the headset. Similar to keying commands to a computer, the wearer’s brain activities

EmoChat (Wright, 2010)


5

were mapped to the car’s commands (Nosowitz, 2011). While potentially useful to the disabled,

though the Emotiv EPOC needs some work first. The signal sent to the car has a few seconds of

delay, so the brain-car interface is not yet a realistic alternative to the steering wheel (Nosowitz,

2011). Another researcher created a research tool called Experimenter, which allows users to set

up experiments that involve Emotiv. In addition to recording data during the automated

experiments, Experimenter tries to classify and analyze the incoming data online (Adelsen,

2011). A third developer created a messenger application. Body language and tone of voice are

absent from standard instant messaging applications, but it is very important to how humans

communicate. The application, called EmoChat, aims to overcome this limitation by

automatically displaying a visual to the reader as to what the writer/headset wearer is feeling at

that exact point in time (Wright, 2010). One final research team developed an application to

allow users to “think” their way through their contact list on their phone and proceed to dial the

selected person (Campbell et al., 2010).

Physical Disability

Physical disability is based on two things: whether a person has one of a variety of long-

lasting conditions, or whether they have a condition that “limits one or more basic physical

activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying” (disabilitystatistics.org,

2012). Physical disabilities can be caused by a number of different things. Some of the more

serious physical disabilities, leading to partial or full paralysis, are primarily caused by stroke or

spinal cord injury (christopherreeve.org, 2012). Other cause include traumatic injury, locked-in

syndrome (where a person is alert but unable to speak or move due to voluntary muscle

paralysis; in some cases, patients are not even able to move their eyes (Wikipedia, 2012)),

multiple sclerosis (a disease involving damage to nerves in the brain and spine, leading to


6

numbness, fatigue, blurred vision, impaired speech, and/or loss of muscle coordination (Google

Dictionary, 2012)), and congenital (or at-birth) defects. There are about six million people with

paralysis, according to a study done by the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation

(christopherreeve.org, 2012).

The Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset can be a helpful tool to the physically disabled. It

provides an opportunity to interact with a device that they may be incapable of interacting with

physically. Various BCI devices and applications have already been developed for the physically

disabled. IpsiHand, for example, is a BCI aimed at helping stroke and traumatic brain injury

patients (Fok, 2011). Stroke and TBI can result in loss of function on one side of the body due to

damage in the opposing side of the brain; however, studies have shown that the ipsilateral (or

correstponding) hemisphere of the brain is also capable of controlling the body. IpsiHand takes

advantage of this and works as a “BCI hand orthosis” to restore movement to the patient (Fok,

2011). Another device is the brain-controlled wheelchair. There are a few different BCIs for

wheelchairs. One BCI allows the operator to move just by thinking of moving left/right/

forward/back. It is coupled with artificial intelligence that uses a mounted camera to guide the

wheelchair around obstacles in its path (Saenz, 2010). Another wheelchair is controlled by the

user focusing on a point on-screen. The wheelchair system is then able to determine an end-

point, and is able to move to this location while avoiding obstacles. This system requires the user

only focus when wanting to initiate movement, allowing them to relax while in transit (Kessel,

2009). Another application of a BCI for the disabled focuses on providing entertainment while

enhancing bodily functions through the use of biofeedback in games. Biofeedback monitors the

body’s automatic functions and uses the information gleaned from these functions in an effort to

provide some voluntary control over them. In games, biofeedback rewards the player for


7

executing some amount of control over the specified function (Ivancovici, Osorio and Rosario,

2011). This provides entertainment to the player, while training the user to control these

“involuntary” functions in the process. One final relevant application is brain-controlled music

interface. The interface allows patients to play music by translating brain impulses into musical

notes. The interface allows those with physical limitations to use music as therapy (Boyle 2011).

The biofeedback application brings up a key point when it comes to the physically

disabled. While it is important to improve quality of life, it is equally important that the

physically disabled have outlets for entertainment and emotional purposes as well. Humans are

not based solely upon what they need to do physically, such as opening doors, climbing stairs,

etc., but on the other factors as well. Humans need to interact, to play, to have a purpose in life.

This need is not limited to just the able-bodied, but encompasses the disabled as well. One of

these types of needs is art. “Art is an indigenous feature of every society – the activity of

painting is almost as ancient as man, and has symbolized oth [sic] personal and cultural aspects

of development (Dalley, 1984).” Art provides a variety of benefits for both the creator and the

viewer. As quoted by paralyzed graffiti artist Tempt One, “Art is the tool of empowerment and

social change” (eyewriter.org, n.d.). It can be used as a universal means of communication and a

way to present a message. It is a platform through which to express personal emotions, raising

consciousness and stimulating or calming the mind (Sidler, n.d.). Art can also be therapeutic; it

can be “relaxing, satisfying, frustrating” (Dalley, 1984).

The physically disabled, even the fully paralyzed, have come across the means to create

art. Many artists turn to painting. Using feet or mouths instead of hands, they are able to create

beautiful imagery. The focus will be on mouth artists, as these are the people that have the

potential to benefit the most from the Emotiv EPOC. Mouth artists create art by manipulating a


8

pen/pencil/paintbrush in their mouth. Often, the artist will have

a holder on the end of the tool to provide better control; some

have mobile easels as well, which results in less necessary head

movement from the artist (Chritchley, 1994). Paining is easier

for some than others. Artists with full neck movement can

obviously control the brush better than those with more limited

mobility. Some artists can only paint in short periods and are

unable to breathe freely while painting (Chritchley, 1994).

There are 107 mouth and foot artists in America registered

with the Association of Mouth and Foot Painting Artists of the

World, 65 of which are still alive, and 1127 mouth and foot artists registered in the world

(vdmfk.com, 2011).

There are a few physically disabled graphic artists as well. These graphic artists create

their art on a computer instead of with physical media such as paint. For those who still retain

head movement, graphic artists like Larime Taylor are able to use a tablet and pen the same way

that mouth artists paint (larimetaylor.com, 2012). However, with the technology available today,

graphic art is possible even for those with absolutely no range of motion at all. One interface

alternative to the mouse/pen and tablet is SmartNav. SmartNav uses a camera to track head

movement via a small dot that can be placed either directly on the head or on an accessory such

as glasses or a hat. The movement is converted into cursor movement on screen (Natural Point,

2011). Artist Sean Kelley comments on the use of SmartNav: “I have a bundle of Adobe CS3

graphic design programs to mess with…Technology is GREAT” (Kelley, 2011). Kelley also

Mouth Artist Steven Chambers (Battle, 2012)


9

mentions using a sip and puff tube to right- and left-click, as SmartNav only controls the cursor

(Kelley 2011).

Another alternative is the EyeWriter, designed by Graffiti Research Lab. EyeWriter is a

prime example of an input device for the fully paralyzed – cursor movement and clicking is

based entirely on eye movement. EyeWriter was a tool originally designed for Tempt One, a

graffiti artist suffering from a form of sclerosis

commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. The

degenerative disease has left him fully

paralyzed, able to move only his eye (Ebeling,

2011, video). EyeWriter works as a kind of

connect-the-dots. Clicking is handled by

holding a gaze at a specific point for four

seconds, which allows the user to both select

different tools and use them on a virtual canvas (Ebeling, 2011). Alternatively, the EyeWriter

can be used to select keys from a virtual keyboard and therefore be used as a means of

communication as well. This device was developed with cost in mind. As creator Mick Ebeling

describes at a TED talk, “You build this yourself, we publish the code for free, you download the

software for free, and now we’ve created a device that has absolutely no limitation. There’s no

insurance company that can say no, there’s no hospital that can say no, anybody that’s paralyzed

now has access to actually draw or communicate using only their eyes” (Ebeling, 2011 video).

Upon using EyeWriter for the first time, Tempt One said thus: “That was the first time I’ve

drawn anything for seven years. I feel like I had been held underwater and someone finally

reached down and pulled my head up so I could breathe” (Ebeling, 2011 video). The device

EyeWriter (Webley, 2010)


10

allowed Tempt to show his work in the Art of the Streets gallery at the Museum of

Contemporary Art in LA (Ebeling, 2011). He also mentions that he is “blessed to be able to

create and use [his] work to promote health reform, bring awareness about ALS and help others”

(eyewriter.org, n.d.).

So how can all of this information be applied to the Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset? The

headset is a possible viable alternative to the above-mentioned input devices. It certainly is an

alternative to those suffering from locked-in syndrome, unable even to move their head to use a

pen and tablet or the SmartNav. It may also be an alternative to the EyeWriter; Emotiv may

allow the user to create rounded lines instead of just straight connect-the-dots. The cursor

movement can be based on head movement, but can also be set to move via thought commands.

“Ideally, the user will eventually master the neuro-headset until using it becomes as natural as

typing on a keyboard or clicking a mouse” (Iancovici, Osoria and Rosario, 2011). The Emotiv

headset provides an opportunity, possibly a better opportunity than the alternatives, for the

physically disabled to find purpose, to act as an emotional outlet, to even provide a means of

income. One artist mentioned she was able to make “a regular salary, could set aside any reliance

on welfare” (Chrichtley, 1994). With these possibilities, it is necessary that these avenues are

explored for the physically disabled for full quality of life improvement, not just a focus on the

physical easements the device may provide.


11

Executive Summary

This study was conducted in order to determine whether or not the Emotiv EPOC

neuroheadset is a practical alternative input device for the severely paralyzed, specifically

examining the headset when used with Adobe Photoshop. The study replicated two different

situations: one where the user had mobility from the neck up, and the other where the user was

fully paralyzed and able only to move their eyes.

Students from all class levels were encouraged to participate in the study, provided they

had at least basic knowledge of Photoshop. A total of ten students participated; five males and

five females. The study was broken up into two sessions; once for a training period, and again

for user testing. During the training period, participants were asked to mentally move a cube on


12

screen up, down, left, and right. This training allowed the computer to ascribe the user’s thought

patterns with the associated commands. User testing encompassed three basic tasks in

Photoshop, using a mouse and then using the headset. All participants completed the tasks using

the mouse. Additionally, participants were split into two groups when working with the headset.

The same tasks were completed in both groups as with the mouse; however, this time

participants had to complete the tasks using either head and facial movement, or thought

commands and eye movement. Data collected for each task consisted of the time it took for the

participant to complete each task. Additionally, participants filled out a short questionnaire after

each task regarding their own views on ease of task completion. The questionnaire provided both

qualitative and subjective data about the usability of the mouse and the headset.

Results and major issues:

• All participants felt that they were either intermediate or expert Photoshop users

• All participants were able to complete tasks when presented with the mouse

• No participant was able to train all four commands up to 80% mastery

• Participants in the motion group were able to complete all tasks in time allotted

• Some participants had trouble with winking, as it would shift the headset and

sometimes move the mouse at an unwanted time; for others winking worked well

• No participant in the mental group was able to complete any of the tasks in the

time allotted

• When using headset with mind commands, users were unable to move in any

direction other than straight horizontal and vertical

• Users found all tasks very difficult when using brain commands

• Some people experienced pain and/or headaches after wearing the headset


13

• On average, discomfort lasted less than an hour after headset removal

• All students would use the headset if they were paralyzed, regardless of which

group they were in

Highlights of findings:

• Participants need more time to train mental commands

• It appears that users will not be able to draw curves or diagonals; however, more

training and a higher level of expertise may give the user this control

• Users should be able to modify which facial commands they can use for

clicking/dragging

• Work should be done on the headset to make it more comfortable for extended

wear


14

Methods

The study was conducted between April 23 and May 4, 2012 in the learning and emotions

lab (room 302A) at SUNY Oswego. It was administered by Julia Kester, and supervised by Dr.

Roger Taylor. A specification outline of the project may be viewed in Appendix A.

Participant # Age Gender Standing Photoshop Expertise

1 19 Female Freshman Intermediate 2 19 Female Freshman Intermediate 3 22 Male Senior Expert 4 21 Female Senior Expert 5 21 Female Senior Expert 6 20 Female Senior Intermediate 7 23 Male Graduate Student Expert 8 20 Male Senior Intermediate 9 25 Male Graduate Student Expert 10 24 Male Junior Intermediate

Software and Hardware

The goals of this project were implemented using Emotiv’s Software Development Kit,

the Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset, Processing, MindYourOSCs, GlovePIE, and user testing.

Images of the software may be viewed in Appendix A. The Emotiv SDK is made up of four

programs: the Emotiv Control Panel, EmoComposer, EmoKey, and TestBench. For this project,

only the Control Panel and EmoComposer were used. The Control Panel is the program that acts

as a translator between the headset and the computer. It is made up of four parts. The first part of

the program is the headset setup – used to show which sensors are connected, and how good of a

connection they are making. The second part of the Control Panel is the Expressiv Suite. The

Expressiv Suite shows an avatar that replicates the facial expressions of the headset wearer,

along with a moving graph depicting the level of detection for each expression. Users can modify


15

the sensitivity of each expression, as well as train each expression, in order to allow the program

to more accurately detect facial movement. The third part of the Control Panel is the Affectiv

Suite, which provides graphical output regarding the wearer’s subjective emotions. The final part

of the Control Panel is the Cognitiv Suite. The Cognitiv Suite is used to train thought commands,

the first step in allowing users to control aspects of the computer with their mind. In this Suite,

the wearer is presented with a cube that they try to control (move/rotate/disappear/etc).

Commands are trained multiple times, and if the thoughts commands are consistent enough, the

level of expertise for each command increases.

EmoComposer is an emulator, which allows the user to test different EmoStates

(commands recognized by the headset) without needing the headset itself. The user can set up

different testing environments within this program, and specify sensor connectivity, as well as

skill and signal level for each command. Additionally, the program can loop through and “send”

information from the headset over and over as if a real headset were being used, or the user may

choose to send one individual signal at a time.

The headset itself is made up of 16 felt sensors that rest on the wearer’s head, making

contact with the scalp through saline solution. The sensors pick up on the wearer’s brain waves,

while a built in gyroscope gathers data on head motion, and the information is transmitted

wirelessly to the computer via a Bluetooth USB drive.

While the Emotiv SDK provided some control over the computer with the headset

(mouse clicks and keyboard strokes) through the EmoKey program, it did not lend support for

mouse movement. Additionally, it was necessary that some commands act as a toggle (on/off

switch). Since this was integral to the project, other programs were required instead. Processing,


16

a java-based programming language/program, was used to handle the movement and thought

commands as well as all toggle situations of clicking, dragging, and releasing the mouse.

Processing required an additional program, MindYourOSCs, along with its associated library, in

order to communicate with the headset and understand the commands being sent to it. Processing

was unable to understand the gyroscope information though, so GlovePIE was utilized for this

aspect. GlovePIE is a program designed to help the computer communicate with a variety of

non-standard input devices, including the Wii remote and PlayStation Move. GlovePIE uses its

own basic scripting language, which is simpler and shorter than Processing; however, toggles

cannot be set up in GlovePIE, which is why both GlovePIE and Processing needed to be

employed instead of one dedicated program. With both of these applications running and

programmed accordingly, the headset wearer is able to move the mouse around on screen, click

(including typing via a virtual keyboard), and use any specified shortcut commands.

After setup in Processing and GlovePIE, the final part of the project consisted of training

and user testing. The training involved users working in the Control Panel with the Cognitiv

Suite, acquainting the participant with the way the headset worked and training four specified

commands (lift/drop/left/right) to be keyed to mouse movement. After training, participants

attempted to complete three tasks in Adobe Photoshop, first with the mouse for a control setting,

and second with the headset. The time results, as well as related questions from the tasks resulted

in the data needed for statistical purposes.

Measures


17

The participants were asked to complete three tasks, once using a mouse and keyboard,

and once using the Emotiv neuroheadset. Each task was measured by the time it took to complete

each task. The completion time was measured with a stopwatch, which was started once the task

was read to the participant. The time was stopped once the participant completed the task, or if

the allotted time of 15 minutes per task was met. When using the headset, use of the mouse and

keyboard was not permitted.

Testing Environment

All participants performed the tasks on the same computer. Adobe Photoshop version 5

was the program used. All participants completed tasks with the mouse. Participants were

randomly split into two groups, both using the same headset. Group one tried to control the

computer using thought commands and winks, while group two used head and facial movements

to try and control the computer. Each participant was provided with their own set of felt sensors

for hygienic purposes.

The researcher acted as both technician and orator. The job of the technician was to

ensure that all necessary programs were running and that a new Photoshop file was opened for

each participant. Additionally, once the participant arrived, the technician would fit the

participant with the headset and confirm that all sensors were connected properly. The technician

also kept track of task times. As orator, the researcher welcomed the participants, briefed them

on the experiment, and administered the tests and questionnaires.


18

Procedure

Participants were welcomed at the door, and were then briefed on the topic and basis of

the study. Participants were asked to read and sign an informed consent form (Appendix B,

Informed Consent Form), which further discussed the study and alerted the participant to any

possible dangers that participating could cause. The survey questionnaire was then given

(Appendix B, Questionnaire I); it consisted of demographic questions regarding age, gender,

education, computer use, and Adobe use. Next, the participant was brought to the computer and

fitted with the neuroheadset. It was explained to the participant that before the actual study could

commence, the computer needed a way to understand their thought patterns and translate these

thoughts into computer commands; for this, training was necessary. The training process was

explained to the participant, and the participant was given up to 15 minutes to work on training

each of the four provided commands. Upon completion, the participant was given a reminder that

their user testing session was the following week, and they were able to leave

For user testing, participants were again greeted and brought to the computer. Participants

were informed that they were first going try to complete tasks employing the mouse. The

experimenter explained each task, which were performed by the participant one at a time. At the

completion of each task, participants were asked to rate the task on difficulty (Appendix B,

Questionnaire II – A). Once all three tasks were completed, the participant was fitted with the

headset and provided with a list of commands (Appendix C) associating the headset with

respective mouse and keyboard commands. The participant was again given three tasks to

complete individually, and asked after each one to rate the task on difficulty (Appendix B,

Questionnaire II – B). Additionally, the participant was asked to suggest other headset

commands that they felt would work better than the ones provided.


19

After testing was complete, participants were asked general questions regarding overall

difficulty of tasks, discomfort (if any) from both headset and mouse, ranking of task difficulty,

and whether or not they would use the headset if they were one day paralyzed (Appendix B,

Questionnaire III – A and III – B). Finally, the participants were debriefed (Appendix B,

Debriefing Statement) and thanked for their participation in the study.

Tasks

Task 1: Create a new layer

• One of the most basic tasks; completed by clicking on the “New Layer” icon on

the bottom right, or through accessing the menu

Task 2: Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool

• Used to gauge motor control. While the circle shape tool allows the user to create

a round shape, the paintbrush will show ease/possibility of drawing curves using

the headset. Completed by clicking on the “Paintbrush” icon and then clicking

and dragging on the canvas.

Task 3: Write, “my name is (first and last name)”

• Requires many clicks – either via physical keyboard (when using mouse) or

virtual keyboard (when using headset). Used to show accuracy and difficulty.

Completed by clicking on the “Text” icon, clicking anywhere on the canvas, and

then sequentially pushing the keys on the virtual keyboard corresponding to the

given sentence.


20

Results

Overall, tasks completed using the mouse resulted in the fastest times (an average of 5.35

seconds/task), while tasks using the headset through motion and facial expressions came in

second (an average of 2 minutes and 16.77 seconds). Tasks using the headset with thought

control were not completed at all. Participants provided difficulty ratings for each task, on a scale

from 1 to 5, 1 being “Very Easy” 5 being “Very Difficult”. Results for difficulty rating were

similar to task completion time; the mouse was rated easiest at an average rating of 1.13. Next

was the motion commands with an average rating of 2.67. The thought control received an

average difficulty rating of 5.

Mouse

Task 1 (Mouse): Create a new layer Average time (s) Minimum time

(s) Maximum time

(s) Average

Difficulty Rating # of times not

completed 2.02 1.3 2.8 1 0

When asked to create a new layer using the mouse, it took users an average of 2.02 seconds, with

a range from 1.3 seconds to 2.8 seconds. This task is performed frequently in Photoshop, and

requires only one click. Participants felt that this task was very easy to complete.

Task 2 (Mouse): Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool Average time (s) Minimum time

(s) Maximum time

(s) Average


completed 4.84 2.1 9 1.2 0

It took users an average of 4.84 seconds to draw a circle with the paintbrush tool when using the

mouse. Times ranged from a low of 2.1 seconds to a high of 9 seconds. Participants rated this

task slightly more difficult than the last, at an average of 1.2


21

Task 3 (Mouse): Write “my name is (first and last name)” Average time (s) Minimum time

(s) Maximum time

(s) Average


completed 9.2 4.5 12.6 1.2 0

This task took the most amount of time for participants to complete. The range of time on this

task was also higher than the other tasks (from 4.5 seconds to 12.6 seconds) – likely due to

variance in each participant’s typing speed. Like task two, participants gave this task a rating of

1.2.

Headset (movement)

Task 1 (Headset, movement): Create a new layer Average time (s) Minimum time

(s) Maximum time

(s) Average


completed 32.66 4.5 59.3 1.8 0

When attempting to create a new layer using the headset via motion, the average time it took

each participant to complete the task was 32.66 seconds. Speeds ranged from a minimum of 4.5

seconds to a maximum of 59.3 seconds. Participants ranked the difficulty of this task at 1.8,

slightly less difficult than “Easy”.

Task 2 (Headset, movement): Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool Average time (s) Minimum time

(s) Maximum time

(s) Average


completed 33.34 23.1 36.2 3.2 0

The average time it took participants to complete task three using the headset via motion was


22

33.34 seconds. Times were a range of 13.1 seconds, from 23.1 seconds up to 36.2 seconds. On

average, participants felt that the task was slightly higher that “Neither easy nor difficult”, at 3.2.

Task 3 (Headset, movement): Write “my name is (first and last name)” Average time (s) Minimum time

(s) Maximum time

(s) Average


completed 344.32 124.7 891.8 3 0

Task three took the longest to complete, with an average of 5 minutes and 44.32 seconds and a

range of 12 minutes and 47.1 seconds; however, participants rated the difficulty of this task

slightly lower than the last, at 3.

Headset (thought commands)

Task 1 (Headset, thought commands): Create a new layer Average time (s) Minimum time

(s) Maximum time

(s) Average


completed - - - 5 5

Task 2 (Headset, thought commands): Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool Average time (s) Minimum time

(s) Maximum time

(s) Average


completed - - - 5 5

Task 3 (Headset, thought commands): Write “my name is (first and last name)” Average time (s) Minimum time

(s) Maximum time

(s) Average


completed - - - 5 5

No participants from the group using thought commands were able to complete any of the tasks

presented to them. All participants ranked each task at the highest level of difficulty, resulting in

an average difficulty of 5 (or “Very Difficult”) for each task.


23

The following box plots provide a visual comparison of the completion time for each

task.

Task 1 Completion Time

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Mouse Motion Thought


24


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000



25

Difficulty Comparison

The following table displays information regarding the overall difficulty of each input

device as perceived by participants, as well as the standard deviation associated with each. The

chart corresponds closely with the averages of the three task average ratings in each group – a

difference of .13 with the mouse and headset using motion. There was no difference between the

overall perceived average using the thought commands versus the average of the difficulty rating

for each task’s mean.

Mean Standard Deviation

Overall mouse difficulty

1 0

Overall headset motion difficulty

2.8 .837

Overall headset thought difficulty

5 0

Statistical Analysis

A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether the input method

(mouse vs. motion vs. thoughts) influenced the time it took to complete the tasks. Results of the

analysis indicate that the null hypothesis should be rejected, and that input method has a

significant effect on task completion time (F (2, 17) = 8611.913, p < .05 for the first task, F (2,

17) = 66728.423, p < .05 for the third task, and F (2, 17) = 52.3378, p < .05 for the third task). A

Tukey HSD test was performed to determine which groups differed significantly from one

another. Results indicated that significant differences in time occurred between all groups:

Mouse (M = 2.02, SD = .459), Motion (M = 32.66, SD = 27.011), Thoughts (M = 900, SD = 0)


26

for task one; Mouse (M = 4.84, SD = 2.062), Motion (M = 33.34, SD = 9.176), Thoughts (M =

900, SD = 0) for task two; and Mouse (M = 9.2, SD = 2.706), Motion (M = 344.32, SD =

328.025), Thoughts (M = 900, SD = 0) for the third task. Full statistical results may be viewed in

Appendix D.


27

Participant Feedback

Along with the quantitative data gathered from the surveys, users also provided

qualitative feedback on the input devices that they used. This feedback included users’ thoughts

and feelings about input device comfort, ease of use, and task difficulty. Overall, users expressed

greater ease and comfort with the mouse.

Mouse feedback:

When asked to comment on how easy the tasks were to complete, comments included:

• “Since I have used Photoshop many times in the past, this was easy for me to do.”

• “I am very familiar with Photoshop”

This feedback shows that the tasks were easy to complete because the users were familiar with

Photoshop. The mouse is also a familiar tool to these users, as it is one of the standard input

devices for a computer.

All participants agreed that the first task (Create a new layer) was the easiest. The general

feedback for this task was that it required only a single click.

Participants varied on their answers for which task was the most difficult. Answers were

either the second task (Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool) or the third task (Type “My name

is (first name, last name)”). Many participants provided further explanations as to why the

specific task was most difficult:

Task 2:

• “I am not good at drawing a circle with the paintbrush tool”


28

• “I draw with a tablet now, so drawing with a mouse is a little harder now”

• “I’m not good at drawing circles”

Task 3:

• “Just the needed time to type”

• “Probably just because it was the most complex. I had to think about spelling”

For participants that chose the second task as the most difficult, their reasoning was that drawing

a circle freehand could be a challenge, especially with a mouse as opposed to a more natural

drawing tool such as a pen and tablet. Others felt task three was the most difficult, because it was

the most complex of the tasks and took more time to complete.

Neuroheadset Feedback - Motion

Participants provided a deal more feedback for the Emotiv headset. Most of it pertained

to the physical and mental pairings of the headset to the computer. Problems that participants

voiced about the motion experience overall included:

• “I learned that if I winked while clenching my jaw it was a lot easier to click on the new layer button”

• “Registration of jaw clenches is touchy”

• “Winking to click on things threw me off because when I wink my head moves”

• “I need a better click event”

• “I am a bad winker I think, so maybe blink once, or twice to start/stop?”

• “Click-and-drag has issues”

While those in the thought group stated:

• “I breathed in deeply and the pointer went up”


29

• “I believe more time to practice with the headset would help. Maybe suggestions for thoughts to control movement during practice would help too”

• “Had harder time moving up and down than in training”

• “Could not get cursor to move. When it did move, it was rarely in the direction I was thinking. For example, thought to move cursor up, and the cursor moved left”

• “Couldn’t go left or right”

• “I could not move the cursor in any direction significantly”

Participants also provided suggestions for device improvement, which included:

• “Winking both eyes for only one command, not splitting it into two”

• “Customize what physical cue is for what function”

• “I think training is more important, because I was thinking all the same things [as in training], it just wouldn’t move all the time”

Overall, participants desired different headset-to-computer pairings in the motion group, while

participants from the thought group wanted more training time and had difficulty in commanding

the cursor to move in the desired direction. Participants felt that the Emotiv headset was an

interesting way to interact with a computer, though rather difficult, with a high learning curve

and in need of improvements.

Participants in the motion group generally felt that the first task was the easiest, although

one person felt that the last task was easiest because they were able to type quickly due to

enlarged buttons on the virtual keyboard. Comments on why the first task was so easy included:

• “Task 1 was simple because it only involved moving your head and clicking on an object once”

• “It’s very easy to point and click with this system”


30

Participants primarily chose the third task as the most difficult to complete with the

headset, explaining that the multiple clicks and head movements necessary significantly

increased the task’s challenge. There were also comments made about the second task, in which

drawing with the headset could be difficult as well. Participants in the thought group generally

agreed with the participants in the motion group as to which tasks were easiest and most

difficult, though as they could not complete even a portion of any of the tasks, in actuality they

were really making a prediction as to which task they would find to be easy or difficult.

When asked how to the headset felt at the end of wearing it, participants voiced a variety

of answers:

• “After the training I got a minor headache compared to feeling fine after the tasks”

• “It takes some time to get used to it but it’s not overwhelming”

• “After the first day using the cube it was more that my head was tired more than uncomfortable”

• “The headset was still comfortable after wearing”

• “Gives a slight headache”

• “My head is itchy and hurts after wearing it only 45 minutes”

• “Time plays a large factor here. It short bursts, the headset doesn’t hurt but prolonged usage is a bit uncomfortable”

• “Barely noticeable after time unless I thought about it”

• “After about 30 minutes it became very uncomfortable around the temple”

There appears to be no consistency in the discomfort experienced by the wearer. Additionally,

when asked how long pain lasted after wearing the headset, the average answer was less than an

hour, though many participants said that the headset did not hurt at all.


31

The last question that was asked of the participants was whether or not they would use

the device if they became severely paralyzed. While all participants in both groups said they

would, many answers were met with conditions:

• “If it was improved and proven to work I would definitely try it”

• “With more practice”

• “If I were able to spend more time and find a way to make it work for me, definitely”

• “But I feel that the training would be very long and irritating”

• “I am not sure to what quality the imagery would be though”

• “I would consider something like this, it was simple to navigate and use”

General thoughts seem to conclude that more practice and more training would result in the

Emotiv headset’s use.


32

Recommendations

Participants showed no apparent problems when attempting to complete tasks using the

mouse/keyboard. There were difficulties, however, in both groups using the headset.

Issue: Mapping mouse clicks to winks

Some participants displayed difficulty trying to click when using the headset via

movement. Winking would cause the headset to move (due to skin movement associated with the

wink), and by extension the gyroscope. Since the gyroscope effected mouse movement, the

mouse would move before the wink was completed, and the participant would click in a different

location than intended. This caused the extreme range in times for Task 1 – because the “New

Layer” button was so small – and Task 3 – because there were many more buttons that needed to

be clicked as compared to the other two tasks. The second task was not as problematic, because

only one button needed to be selected, and it was larger than the “New Layer” button. There

were some participants that displayed no difficulty at all when winking – hence the 4.5-second

time for task one, much lower than the average time for the task.

Recommendation

Offer alternative mappings for the mouse clicks. This would allow users to choose

something that would suit them better. Options include smiling, smirking, laughing.

Issue: Raising eyebrows triggers repeated command


33

In the motion group, participants were supposed to be able to start running a virtual

keyboard by raising their eyebrows. During pilot testing, this mapping worked as expected.

However, during actual testing, while raising eyebrows would still bring up the keyboard, the

command kept getting sent repeatedly to the computer. This in turn prevented the user from

being able to complete the task further.

Recommendation

Mapping the headset to the keyboard was turned off for user testing. The programming in

Processing should probably be examined thoroughly; though there were no apparent errors and

the code looked correct, there is likely something that was overlooked that is causing the issue.

Issue: cursor tracking

When trying to move the cursor around on screen, participants would often have to turn

or rotate their head further than was comfortable to look at the computer screen. The information

being communicated between the gyroscope and the cursor position appears to require

recalibration. For example, a user might tilt their head up to move the cursor up, but their head is

already tilted to begin with so the extra tilt now makes it difficult to see the computer. To fix

this, the user would have to move the cursor in the opposite direction until it meets the edge of

the screen, and continue to move their head past this point. A better way to explain the problem

may be to compare it with a mouse. If the tracking on the mouse is lower, the user might move

the mouse forward until they run out of area on the desk to keep going, but the cursor on the

screen still has not yet reached the point that the user desires. The fix for the headset is


34

equivalent to the mouse user needing to lift the mouse and reposition it to continue moving the

cursor.

Recommendation

Attempt to implement an algorithm to allow for better tracking.

Issue: Thought commands

Using the thought commands to move the mouse cursor proved to be a major challenge

for all participants in the group. Participants would try to move in one direction, and the cursor

would often move in another or not at all. Additionally, when the cursor did move, it was in a

strict vertical or horizontal direction. Users were not able to move the cursor at an angle or in a

curve – the basis behind the project.

Recommendation

Give users more time to train. Participants were unable to train any command up to at

least 80% mastery except for the first (lift). With more time, expertise should increase, and the

participant should be able to better control where the cursor moves. Higher expertise will

hopefully also result in the ability to draw diagonals and curves.

Issue: MindYourOSCs crashing

The MindYourOSCs program that communicated between the Emotiv Control Panel and

Processing crashed sometimes when in the middle of user testing. It was often not apparent when

this happened, as no error message showed up above the rest of the windows – the message


35

would be at whatever window level the actual program rested; in this case, it was always running

behind Photoshop or one of the other necessary programs. Users would need to restart the task

once this was discovered.

Recommendation

Notify developer of the issue. Developer should fix bugs associated with the

program crashing. Additionally, the error message should appear on top of all other windows so

that the user is aware the program has crashed.


36

Conclusion

Overall, the Emotiv headset shows potential as an alternative input device for the

paralyzed. Despite the results of the one-way ANOVA, which shows a significant amount of

variance between the three input groups (mouse, motion, and thought), using the device with

motion alone is certainly feasible. The user testing proves this, as each participant in the motion

group was able to complete each task – nearly all in a respectable amount of time. For anyone

paralyzed entirely though, results are not promising for using the headset with thoughts. None of

the participants in the thought group were able to complete any of the tasks. However,

modifications to both the headset and the research project may yield more encouraging results.

If future work were to be done regarding this topic, changes would need to be made to the

methods in which the research is done. The original intent was to determine whether the Emotiv

EPOC neuroheadset is a better alternative input device for the severely paralyzed than the

EyeWriter or SmartNav inputs. However, the other input devices were not available for this

particular study. In the future, it would be important to have participants in groups with these

other devices as well as the two groups testing the headset. This would allow a way to directly

compare all of the groups instead of predicting an outcome without evidence. These additional

groups would also eliminate the need for testing with the mouse and keyboard. Additionally, for

more accurate results and greater statistical power, it is highly important that more than five

participants are in each group. The group using thought commands with the headset should be

given more time for training, as fifteen minutes per command allows very little mastery. The

group using motion commands with the headset would not need to train at all (originally,

participants were going to be split into headset groups based on mental command expertise, in

order to try and evenly distribute expertise level across the groups; however, participant expertise


37

levels were all approximately the same). It may be necessary to determine whether or not

training is needed for the other devices as well, and allot time for such as necessary. One final

improvement would be to present each participant with the same exact sentence to type.

Requiring that participants type their name results in time inconsistencies; one user may have a

very short name, while another a very long one. Requiring the same sentence would eliminate a

possible confounding variable.


38

Bibliography

(2012). In Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from

http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.ddJFKRNoFiG/b.4048063/k.C5D5/Christopher_R

eeve_Spinal_Cord_Injury_and_Paralysis_Foundation.htm

(2012). In Disability Statistics. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from

http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/index.cfm

About SmartNav. (n.d.). In SmartNav. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from

http://www.naturalpoint.com/smartnav/products/about.html

Adelsen, M. (2011). Emotiv Experimenter: An experimentation and mind-reading application for

the Emotiv EPOC (Master's thesis). 15 April

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. (2010, August 27). In PubMed Health. Retrieved February 11,

2012, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001708/

Artists worldwide. (2011). In VDMFK. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from

http://www.vdmfk.com/index.php?id=440&L=0&MP=3-893

Battle, B. (2012, February 2). Incredible paintings are work of mouth art. In The Sun. Retrieved

February 11, 2012, from http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4103893/Mouth-

artist-Steve-Chambers-50-paints-with-the-brush-between-his-lips.html

Boyle, R. (2011, March 22). Mind-controlled musical instrument helps paralysis patients

rehabilitate. In PopSci.com. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from


39

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-03/medicine-mind-using-eeg-patients-

can-play-music-merely-thinking

Campbell, A., Choudhury, T., Hu, S., Lu, H., Mukerjee, M., Rabbi, M., & Raizada, R. (2010).

NeuroPhone: Brain-mobile phone interface using a wireless EEG headset (Master's

thesis). 30 August

Chritchley, E. (1994, August). The motivation and shared experience of mouth and foot painting

artists. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 87, 457-460.

Dalley, T. (1984). Art as therapy: An introduction to the use of art as a therapeutic technique.

New York City, NY: Tavistock Publications.

Ebeling, M. (2011, April). Mick Ebeling: The invention that unlocked a locked-in artist. In TED.

Retrieved February 11, 2012, from

http://www.ted.com/talks/mick_ebeling_the_invention_that_unlocked_a_locked_in_artist

.html

Emotiv software development kit: User manual for release 1.0.0.5. (2011).

EPOC neuroheadset. (2012). In Emotiv.com. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from

http://emotiv.com/store/hardware/epoc-bci/epoc-neuroheadset/

Fok, S. (2011, April 27). IpsiHand: Direct recouping if intention and movement. In RESNA.

Retrieved February 11, 2012, from http://aac-rerc.psu.edu/wordpressmu/RESNA-

SDC/2011/04/27/ipsihand-direct-recoupling-of-intention-and-movement-washington-

university-in-st-louis/


40

Iancovici, T., Osorio, S., & Rosario, B. (2011). Biofeedback in virtual reality applications and

gaming.

Kelleys, S. (2011). About Me. In SeanKelleys.com. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from

http://seankelleys.com/about-me/

Kessel, A. (2009, May 26). Advancements in brain control: Wheelchairs that move by thought.

In Singularity Hub. Retrieved March 6, 2012, from

http://singularityhub.com/2009/05/26/advancements-in-brain-control-wheelchairs-that-

move-by-thought/

Locked-in syndrome. (2010, June 6). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome#cite_note-bauer1979varieties-0

Lusebrink, V. (2004). Art therapy and the brain: An attempt to understand the underlying

processes of art expression in therapy. Journal of the Art Therapy Association, 21(3),

125-135.

Multiple sclerosis. (2012). In Google Dictionary. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-

8&ion=1#hl=en&site=webhp&q=multiple+sclerosis&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=VO9

oT_uGC-T30gHW47mACQ&ved=0CDsQkQ4&fp=1&ix=sea&ion=1&biw=1593&

Nosowitz, D. (2011, February 18). Video: German autonomous car project demonstrates driving

with brainwaves. In PopSci.com. Retrieved February 8, 2012, from

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011-02/video-mind-controlled-car-obeys-your-

unspoken-commands


41

Popova, M. (2010, June 4). EyeWriter: Eyetracking device empowers paralyzed graffiti artist. In

Big Think. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from http://bigthink.com/ideas/20374

Saenz, A. (2010, September 14). Great video of wheelchair controlled by human thought with AI

guidance. In Singularity Hub. Retrieved February 14, 2012, from

http://singularityhub.com/2010/09/14/great-video-of-wheelchair-controlled-by-human-

thought-with-ai-guidance/

Schwartz, A., Cui, X., Weber, D., & Moran, D. (2006, October 5). Neuron, 52, 205-220.

Sidler, R. Art therapy for patients with paraplegia. Paraplegie, 104.

Stopczynski, A., Larsen, J., Stahlhut, C., Petersen, M., & Hansen, L. (2011). A smartphone

interface for a wireless EEG headset with real-time 3D reconstruction.

Taylor, L. (n.d.). Art. In Larime Taylor. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from

http://larimetaylor.com/?page_id=7

Webley, K. (2010, November 11). The 50 best inventions of 2010. In Time Specials. Retrieved

February 11, 2012, from

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2029497_2030618_202982

2,00.html

Wright, F. (2010). EmoChat (Master's thesis).


42

Appendix A – Outline and Software

Specifications Outline

• Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset • Emotiv Research Edition SDK

o Control Panel Headset setup/connectivity Training of thought commands

o EmoComposer Simulate headset and actions for easier testing

• Processing o Define computer commands for headset

Lift/drop/left/right = up/down/left/right Clicking/dragging = winks/jaw clenches

o Use for toggling mouse clicks/drags • MindYourOSCs

o Communicate between Processing and headset • GlovePIE software

o Interpret gyroscopic information from headset and translate to mouse movements • Adobe Photoshop

o Testing environment • Minimum of 10 users who are familiar with Adobe Photoshop

o Training Four commands: Lift/Drop/Left/Right Maximum of 15 minutes per command for training

o Tasks Three basic tasks in Photoshop - first with mouse, second with headset

• Half will attempt to perform headset tasks through facial movements, the other half through mental commands; randomly selected

Timed • Maximum of 15 minutes per task


43

Control Panel


44

EmoComposer


45

GlovePIE


46

Processing


47

MindYourOSCs


48

Appendix B – Instruments

Informed Consent Form

Informed Consent

This study involves research and is being conducted by Julia Kester, MA in Human Computer Interaction, under the supervision of Dr. Roger Taylor. The nature of this research involves the use of the Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset as an input device. The purpose is to determine if the headset is a practical alternative input device for the physically disabled, specifically focusing on the creation of art. The research should take no more than two one-hour durations per subject. The Human Subjects Committee has approved the study.

For the first part of the study, you will be asked to fill out a survey on demographics before beginning the task. The survey will include questions regarding age, gender, and technological experience. You will then be brought to a designated laptop and equipped with the Emotiv headset. You will then attempt to train your brain to four specified commands. You will continue to train your brain until each command reaches a level of no less than 80% learned, or as long as you are willing to continue, whichever comes first, for a period of no more 15 minutes/command. At the end of the training, the headset will be removed, and the sensors will be placed in a plastic bag with you participant number to be used in the next part of the study.

For the second part of the study, you will again be brought to the designated computer to perform three tasks in Adobe Photoshop using the mouse and keyboard. After completing the tasks, you will be fitted with the Emotiv headset. This time, you will be asked to complete the tasks using only the Emotiv headset. In both cases, you will be timed for statistical purposes, but are encouraged to go at your own pace. At the completion of each task, you will be asked questions regarding task difficulty. At the end of all tasks, you will be given a post-experiment survey inquiring about overall difficulty, any discomfort, and whether or not you would use the device if you were hypothetically fully paralyzed.

After a time, you may experience physical discomfort on your head where the sensors rest. Additionally, you may feel mental fatigue from the thought commands necessary to use the Emotiv headset. You are asked to inform the researcher if anything more than minor discomfort or fatigue occurs. Additionally, you may withdraw from the study at any point in time for any reason.

Your identity will be kept entirely anonymous. Anything referring to you will be done through a participant number (e.g. assigned ID).

Benefits of this research include providing an alternative input device for the physically disabled, which in turn provides a creative outlet and potentially a way to earn a living as a


49

graphic artist or similar. Benefits to the participant include getting to use an innovative and interesting piece of technology that most people will not have access to.

You are welcome to ask questions about the research even after the session is over. You may contact the researcher, Julia Kester, at [email protected] or by calling 585-478-8710.

I have read the above statement about the purpose and nature of this study, and I freely consent to participate.

Participant’s Signature Date Experimenter’s Signature Date

Print Participant’s Name Date Print Experimenter’s Name Date


50

Questionnaire I

Questionnaire I Participant #_________

Please complete questions to the best of your ability Date________________

1. What is your age? (Circle one)

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25+

2. What is your gender? (Circle one)

Male Female

3. What is your class standing? (Circle one)

A. Freshman

B. Sophomore

C. Junior

D. Senior

E. Graduate student

F. Other

4. What is the highest level of education you have obtained? (Circle one)

A. Some high school or less

B. High school diploma

C. Some college (less than 2 years)

D. Two-year college degree (AA)

E. Four-year college degree (BA or BS)


51

F. MA/PhD, MD, MBA, Law degree

5. Are computers and/or graphic design significant focuses in your major? (Circle one)

A. Yes

B. No

C. Not sure.

6. For how long have you used computers?(Circle one)

A. More than 10 years

B. Between 5 and 10 years

C. Between 0 and 5 years

7. In terms of computers, what is your level of technological expertise?

A. Beginner

B. Intermediate

C. Expert

D. Not sure

8. What is your computer preference? (Circle one)

A. Desktop

B. Laptop

C. Other

D. No preference


52

9. How often do you use computers in a day (in hours)? (Circle one)

A. Greater than 10 hours

B. Between 5 and 10 hours

C. Between 0 and 5 hours

D. Never

10. What is your experience level with the entire Adobe Creative Suite?

A. Beginner

B. Intermediate

C. Expert

D. Not Sure

11. What is your experience level with Adobe Photoshop?

A. Beginner

B. Intermediate

C. Expert

D. Not Sure


53

Questionnaire II - A

Questionnaire II - A Participant #______

Please complete questions to your best ability. Date____________

The following questions will be asked at the end of each task that uses the mouse.

Task I

1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the task? (Circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

Very Easy Easy Neither Easy Nor Difficult

Difficult Very Difficult

Task II


1 2 3 4 5



Task III


1 2 3 4 5




54

Questionnaire II - B

Questionnaire II - B Participant #______

Please complete questions to your best ability. Date____________

The following questions will be asked at the end of each task that uses the Emotiv headset.

Task I


1 2 3 4 5



2. Do you have any suggestions about how the task could be completed with the Emotiv EPOC in a more intuitive manner? (Write in)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Task II


1 2 3 4 5

Very Easy Easy Neither Easy

Nor Difficult



55


________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Task III


1 2 3 4 5

Very Easy Easy Neither Easy

Nor Difficult



________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


56

Questionnaire III - A

Questionnaire III - A Participant #_______

Please complete questions to your best ability. Date______________

The following questions regard the tasks you attempted to complete while using mouse.

1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the requested tasks? (Circle one)

1 2 3 4 5



Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Which task did you find most difficult? (Circle one)

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3

Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Which task did you find easiest? (Circle one)



57

Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. How did the mouse feel to you at the end of wearing it? (Circle One)

1 2 3 4 5

Very Comfortable

Comfortable Neither Comfortable

Nor Uncomfortable

Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable

Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


58

Questionnaire III - B

Questionnaire III - B Participant #_______

Please complete questions to your best ability. Date______________

The following questions regard the tasks you attempted to complete while using the Emotiv headset.

1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the requested tasks? (Circle one)

1 2 3 4 5



Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Which task did you find most difficult? (Circle one)


Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Which task did you find easiest? (Circle one)



59

Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. How did the headset feel to you at the end of wearing it? (Circle One)

1 2 3 4 5

Very Comfortable

Comfortable Neither Comfortable

Nor Uncomfortable

Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable

Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. If you were to one day become paralyzed from the neck down would you be interested in using this device to create graphic imagery? (Circle One)

Yes No

Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


60

Debriefing Statement

DEBRIEFING STATEMENT

This research was conducted in order to evaluate the practicality of the Emotiv EPOC headset as an alternative computer input device for the severely physically handicapped.

In this study, you were monitored when completing your assigned tasks and were asked to answer questions from a questionnaire about your experience. All participants were given these tasks. In addition, all participants were asked the same questions and stated their own opinions to each. I expect that some participants will have trouble completing some of the tasks due to being introduced to a new input system, but that the tasks accomplishable.

If you would like to receive a report of the data when it is completed, or you would like to receive a summary of the findings, please contact Julia Kester at [email protected]. If you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this experiment, please contact the faculty supervisor, Dr. Roger Taylor at (315) 312-4150 or Dr. Barry Friedman, the chair of Human Subject Committee at (315)-312-6381. If you have experienced any undue stress or have negative reactions regarding your experience as a participant and wish further assistance, please seek the help of the personnel at the Student Counseling Center at the following contact information: Student Counseling Center 113 Mary Walker Health Center, Oswego, New York 13126, Phone: (315) 312-4416, Hours: 8:30AM - 4:30PM.

Thank you for your participation.


61

Appendix C – List of Commands

Headset (Movement) Headset (Thoughts)

Move cursor: Rotate head up/down/left/right respectively

Left click: Left wink

Right click: Right wink

Open virtual keyboard: Raise eyebrows

Move cursor: Think lift/drop/left/right respectively

Left click: Left wink

Toggle mouse dragging: Right wink


62

Appendix D – Statistical Analysis

emotiv as an alternative input device for the physically ...abstract when considering the emotiv...

Documents