Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bias, R.G."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Huang, S.-C.; Bias, R.G.; Schnyer, D.: How are icons processed by the brain? : Neuroimaging measures of four types of visual stimuli used in information systems (2015) 0.01 
    0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 1725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=1725,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1725, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1725)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We sought to understand how users interpret meanings of symbols commonly used in information systems, especially how icons are processed by the brain. We investigated Chinese and English speakers' processing of 4 types of visual stimuli: icons, pictures, Chinese characters, and English words. The goal was to examine, via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, the hypothesis that people cognitively process icons as logographic words and to provide neurological evidence related to human-computer interaction (HCI), which has been rare in traditional information system studies. According to the neuroimaging data of 19 participants, we conclude that icons are not cognitively processed as logographical words like Chinese characters, although they both stimulate the semantic system in the brain that is needed for language processing. Instead, more similar to images and pictures, icons are not as efficient as words in conveying meanings, and brains (people) make more effort to process icons than words. We use this study to demonstrate that it is practicable to test information system constructs such as elements of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) with neuroscience data and that, with such data, we can better understand individual or group differences related to system usage and user-computer interactions.
  2. Bias, R.G.; Larson, K.; Huang, S.-C.; Aumer-Ryan, P.R.; Montesclaros, C.: ¬An exploratory study of visual and psychological correlates of preference for onscreen subpixel-rendered text (2010) 0.01 
    0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 3438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=3438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Font-rendering technologies play a critical role in presenting clear and aesthetic fonts to enhance the experience of reading from computer screens. This article presents three studies investigating visual and psychological correlates of people's preferences toward different onscreen text enhancements such as ClearType developed by Microsoft. Findings suggested that (a) people's acuity and hue sensitivity were two major factors that affect their preferences to ClearType's color filtering of subpixels on fonts, and (b) specific personality traits such as disagreeableness also could correlate with people's impressions of different onscreen text enhancements that were used. These empirical data would inform digital typographers and human-computer interaction scientists who aim to develop better systems of onscreen reading.

Authors

Themes