USER-CENTERED DESIGN EVALUATION BY APPLICATION OF 
BIOFEEDBACK TECHNOLOGY 
 
 
 
 
 
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis 
is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does 
not include proprietary or classified information. 
 
 
 
________________________________________ 
Whitney Ann Skinner 
 
 
 
 
 
Certificate of Approval: 
 
 
 
_________________________   _________________________ 
Bret H. Smith       Tsai Lu Liu, Chair 
Professor       Assistant Professor 
Industrial Design     Industrial Design 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________   _________________________ 
Shea Tillman       Stephen L. McFarland 
Assistant Professor      Acting Dean 
Industrial Design      Graduate School 
USER-CENTERED DESIGN EVALUATION BY APPLICATION OF 
BIOFEEDBACK TECHNOLOGY 
 
Whitney Ann Skinner 
 
 
A Thesis 
Submitted to 
the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in Partial Fulfillment of the 
Requirements for the 
Degree of 
Masters of Industrial Design 
 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
December 15, 2006 
 iii
USER-CENTERED DESIGN EVALUATION BY APPLICATION OF  
BIOFEEDBACK TECHNOLOGY 
 
 
 
Whitney Ann Skinner 
 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, 
upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense.  The author reserves all 
publication rights. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
Signature of Author   
 
 
 
     
Date of Graduation   
 
 
 
 
 
 iv
VITA 
 Whitney Ann Skinner was born in Dallas, Texas on January 21, 1981 to Peter 
James Skinner and Cynthia Allen Skinner of Coppell, Texas. She attended all Coppell 
public schools through High School where she graduated in 1999. She enrolled at 
Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas and studied Environmental Design 
in the College of Architecture. On May 10, 2003, she was awarded a Bachelors of 
Environmental Design with a minor in Art and Architectural History. During a study 
abroad semester to Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy in her junior year she had the honor of 
winning a design competition with two other students. The monument, Memory, 
stands 12 feet tall in travertine marble in honor of those that have been lost to war and 
terror. This defining moment led her to apply to Auburn University?s department of 
Industrial Design for the post-baccalaureate program and Masters program. On May 
11, 2004, Whitney was awarded a Bachelors of Science in Environmental Design. 
From May 2004 to August 2006, Whitney has been diligently exploring, learning, and 
researching materials and experiences to include in this thesis document. Because of 
the great opportunities this thesis work has offered, Whitney will be continuing to 
study design and biofeedback technologies in the College of Human Sciences while 
she works towards a Doctorate in Integrated Textiles an Apparel Sciences. Her future 
goals include additional European travels, possible design consulting and a career in 
the University setting.   
 v
THESIS ABSTRACT 
USER-CENTERED DESIGN EVALUATION BY APPLICATION OF  
BIOFEEDBACK TECHNOLOGIES 
Whitney Ann Skinner 
Master of Industrial Design, December 15, 2006 
(B.S., Auburn University, 2004) 
(B.E.D., Texas A&M University, 2003) 
 
 
167 typed pages 
Directed by Tsai Lu Liu 
 It is the responsibility of an Industrial Designer to create products that are 
valuable in usability and aesthetics for the user.  Through design evaluation, the designer 
is able to use techniques of screening out less attractive ideas so that the final result best 
meets the users? needs. User-centered design evaluation approaches help to minimize the 
guess work for designers by gathering the user?s feedback throughout the product?s 
development.  This approach helps to minimize the risk of product failure by channeling 
the user?s preferences during the product development.   
 There are many design evaluation methods, from criteria matrix, weighting and 
rating, check list, dot-sticking, to user testing that aim to measure user attitude toward 
designers? concept sketches, models, or prototypes.  These methods capture the conscious 
physical responses the users make in evaluating the designs.  During the translation 
period, the users? real time responses are filtered to designers through the communication 
 vi
process.  Many inherent problems, such as bias and misinterpretation, associated with 
communication are inevitable during the process. Therefore, design evaluation techniques 
are modified to effectively help designers select the ideas that user responds best towards 
 Biofeedback technologies, used by psychologists for years, provide much more 
objective results for design evaluation.  The Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) uses a 
psycho-galvanometer to measure the resistance of the skin to the passage of a very small 
electric current.  The magnitude of this electrical resistance is affected not only by a 
person?s general mood, but also by his or her immediate emotional reactions.  The change 
of this electrical resistance is related to the level of cortical arousal. The results from a 
GSR experiment are a record of the internally experience emotions that a user cannot 
communicate consciously or physically through other evaluation methods.   
 This study introduced a new design evaluation method that addresses the 
physically expressed thoughts and emotions as well as the internally experienced 
emotional response.  Understanding the user?s emotional response through a traditional 
method of evaluation and a biofeedback method allows designers to better understand the 
user.  This method impacts design evaluation and product outcomes with a process that 
captures a more complete response from the user.  Essentially, products evaluated using 
this new method are likely to be more successful than those evaluated using current 
methods.  
 vii 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
 I?d like to express my gratitude to those that have been with me on this little 
adventure in my educational career.  First, to my Lord and Savior for the path that He has 
led me on.  I will trust in His ways, they?ve been pretty good so far.  Next, to my parents, 
Cindy and Jim, who have always been supportive, even when they didn?t know what it 
was that I was studying.  Your financial support and love have and will always be 
appreciated.  To Clark Lundell for giving me the opportunity to study at Auburn, for 
always having an open door, an ear to listen and talk with me, and for his generous 
support of me as student.  I?d like to thank members of my Thesis Committee, Bret Smith 
and Shea Tillman for their advice, direction and encouragement throughout this process.  
Most importantly, I want to thank Tsai Lu Liu, my major professor, committee chair and 
friend.  Without his encouragement, constructive criticism, support and friendship, I 
would not have been able to complete this work.  His friendship and mentoring have 
greatly affected my life and I?ll always be appreciative.  And a final word of thanks goes 
out to all my friends from home and here in Auburn.  Your friendship has enriched my 
life and made this little adventure much easier.  Thank you. 
 viii
Style manual used:  APA Publication Manual, Fifth Edition 
 
 
Computer software used:  Microsoft Word, Adobe Photoshop CS2, Adobe Illustrator  
         CS2, Rhinoceros 3.0  
 ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
      
LIST OF FIGURES  
        
1. INTRODUCTION     
1.1 Industrial Design Background 
1.2 Problem Statement   
1.3 Need for Study   
1.4 Literature Review   
1.5 Objectives of Study   
1.6 Definition of Terms   
1.7 Assumptions    
1.8 Scope and Limits   
1.9 Procedures and Methodology  
1.10 Anticipated Outcomes  
1.11 Deliverables   
1.12 Speculations    
 
2. SESSION 1 EXPERIMENT     
2.1 Preparation    
2.2 Participant Recruitment and Involvement 
2.3 Experiment Design     
2.4 Anticipated Outcomes     
2.5 Deliverables      
2.6 Actual Findings     
2.7 Discussion      
 
3. SESSION 2 EXPERIMENT    
3.1 Preparation      
3.2 Participant Involvement    
3.3 Experiment Design     
3.4 Anticipated Outcomes     
3.5 Deliverables  
3.6 Actual Findings     
3.7 Discussion 
 
xi 
 
 
1 
2 
5 
7 
23 
24 
26 
27 
29 
32 
32 
33 
 
 
35 
35 
36 
41 
41 
42 
49 
 
 
50 
50 
50 
55 
56 
56 
64 
 
 x
4. SESSION 3 EXPERIMENT    
4.1 Preparation     
4.2 Participant Involvement   
4.3 Experiment Design    
4.4 Anticipated Outcomes    
4.5 Deliverables     
4.6 Actual Findings    
4.7 Discussion     
 
5. SESSION 4 EXPERIMENT   
5.1 Preparation     
5.2 Participant Involvement   
5.3 Experiment Design    
5.4 Anticipated Outcomes    
5.5 Deliverables     
5.6 Actual Findings    
5.7 Discussion     
   
6. EXPERIMENT CONCLUSION   
6.1 GSR Chart Type Analyses   
6.2 GSR Chart Conclusions by Session  
6.3 GSR Chart Experiment Conclusions    
 
7. GUIDELINE FOR DESIGN EVALUATION AND  
    BIOFEEDBACK TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH  
7.1 Establish if Biofeedback is Appropriate for Study 
7.2 Determine Time Frame for Introduction of 
      Biofeedback into Study 
7.3 Specific Uses of Biofeedback Technology in Study 
7.4 Interpretation of Biofeedback Technology Results 
7.5 Conclusions    
 
8. CONCLUSION OF STUDY    
8.1 Summary of Study   
8.2 Study Accomplishment  
8.3 Future areas of study    
   
BIBLIOGRAPHY / REFERENCES  
    
APENDIX        
 
65 
65 
65 
71 
71 
72 
80 
 
 
81 
81 
82 
85 
86 
86 
93 
 
 
94 
105 
109 
 
 
 
110 
111 
 
112 
116 
118 
 
 
119 
120 
124 
 
126 
 
129 
 
 xi
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
Figure 2.1 - Preliminary Session 1 PowerPoint Presentation 
Figure 2.2 - Actual Session 1 PowerPoint Presentation  
Figure 2.3 - Session 1 Picture Survey Example   
Figure 2.4 - Session 1 GSR Chart Dissection & Explanation 
Figure 2.5 - Session 1 Chart Example    
Figure 2.6 ? Session 1 Chart Example    
Figure 2.7 ? Session 1 Data Presentation    
Figure 2.8 ? Session 1 Concept Sketch Results in Preference 
                    Order   
  
Figure 2.8 ? Concept 2      
Figure 2.9 ? Concept 3      
Figure 2.10 ? Concept 18      
Figure 2.11 ? Concept 6      
Figure 2.12 ? Concept 1      
Figure 2.13 ? Concept 15      
Figure 2.14 ? Concept 20     
    
  
       
37 
 
38 
 
40 
 
43 
 
44 
 
45 
 
47 
 
47 
 
 
48 
 
48 
 
48 
 
48 
 
48 
 
48 
 
48 
 
 
 
 
 xii
Figure 3.1 - Session 2 Concepts     
Figure 3.2 - Session 2 PowerPoint Presentation   
Figure 3.3 ? Session 2 Picture Survey Example   
Figure 3.4 - Session 2 GSR Chart Dissection & Explanation 
Figure 3.5 - Session 2 GSR Chart & Specific Picture Survey 
                    Results   
 
Figure 3.6 - Session 2 GSR Chart & Specific Picture Survey  
                    Results   
 
Figure 3.7 - Session 2 GSR Chart & Specific Picture Survey 
                    Results   
 
Figure 3.8- Session 2 Analyzed Results    
Figure 3.9 - Concept D      
Figure 3.10 - Concept C      
Figure 3.11 - Concept E      
Figure 3.12 - Concept B      
Figure 3.13 - Concept A      
Figure 3.14 - Session 2 Results in Visual Form   
 
Figure 4.1 - Session 3 Models used in PowerPoint Presentation 
Figure 4.2 - Session 3 PowerPoint Presentation   
Figure 4.3 - Session 3 Pre-Prototypes made of urethane foam 
Figure 4.4 - Session 3 Model Color Options    
Figure 4.5 - Session 3 Picture Survey Example   
Figure 4.6 ? Session 3 GSR Chart Dissection & Explanation 
51 
 
53 
 
54 
 
57 
 
58 
 
 
59 
 
 
60 
 
 
61 
 
62 
 
62 
 
62 
 
62 
 
62 
 
63 
 
 
 
66 
 
67 
 
68 
 
69 
 
70 
 
73 
 
 xiii
Figure 4.7 ? Session 3 GSR Chart     
Figure 4.8 ? Session 3 GSR Chart     
Figure 4.9 ? Session 3 GSR Chart     
Figure 4.10 - Session 3 Results from Averages & GSR Charts 
Figure 4.11 - Color Preference Results from Picture Surveys 
Figure 4.12 - Concept A      
Figure 4.13 - Concept B      
Figure 4.14 - Concept C      
Figure 4.15 - Session 3 Model Results in order of Preference  
                          and Color   
  
 
Figure 5.1 - Session 4 Final Prototype (New Product) and  
                    Comparison Product  
 
Figure 5.2 - Session 4 PowerPoint Presentation   
Figure 5.3 ? Session 4 Picture Survey Example   
Figure 5.4 ? Session 4 GSR Chart Dissection & Explanation 
Figure 5.5 ? Session 4 GSR Chart     
Figure 5.6 ? Session 4 GSR Chart     
Figure 5.7 ? Session 4 GSR Chart     
Figure 5.8 - Session 4 Numerical Results    
Figure 5.9 - New Product Participant Scores    
Figure 5.10 - Comparison Product Participant Scores 
 
 
 
74 
 
75 
 
76 
 
77 
 
77 
 
78 
 
78 
 
78 
 
79 
 
 
 
82 
 
 
83 
 
84 
 
87 
 
88 
 
89 
 
90 
 
91 
 
92 
 
92 
 
 
 
 
 
 xiv
Figure 6.1 -GSR Chart Type Analysis   
Figure 6.2 ? Sessions 1 & 2 GSR Type A Chart Samples 
Figure 6.3 ? Sessions 3 & 4 GSR Type A Chart Samples  
Figure 6.4 ? Sessions 1 & 2 GSR Type B Chart Samples  
Figure 6.5 - Session 3 & 4 GSR Type B Chart Samples  
Figure 6.6 ? Sessions 1 & 2 GSR Type C Chart Samples  
Figure 6.7 - Sessions 3 & 4 GSR Type C Chart Samples  
Figure 6.8 - Session 1 GSR Chart Type Numerical Analysis by 
                   Gender  
  
Figure 6.9 - Session 2 GSR Chart Type Numerical Analysis by 
                    Gender 
 
Figure 6.10 - Session 3 GSR Chart Type Numerical Analysis 
                      by Gender 
    
Figure 6.11 - Session 4 GSR Chart Type Numerical Analysis 
                      by Gender  
 
 
 
Figure 8.1 ? Anticipated Outcomes 1-3    
Figure 8.2 ? Anticipated Outcomes 4-6  
   
Figure A1 ? Comparison Product Images    
Figure A2 ? Performance Criteria Chart    
Figure A3 - MP4 Player Product Specifications  
    
Figure A4 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant AA-F  
Figure A5 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant AF-F 
    
Figure A6 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant AM-F  
95 
 
97 
 
98 
 
100 
 
101 
 
103 
 
104 
 
105 
 
 
106 
 
 
107 
 
 
108 
 
 
 
 
122 
 
123 
 
 
 
130 
 
131 
 
132 
 
133 
 
134 
 
135 
 xv
 
Figure A7 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant BB-M  
 
Figure A8 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant BW-M 
    
Figure A9 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant CS-M  
 
Figure A10 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant DO-F 
 
Figure A11 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant HB-F  
 
Figure A12 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant JC-M 
    
Figure A13 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant JG-M 
    
Figure A14 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant JP-F 
   
Figure A15 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant JR-M 
    
Figure A16 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant KP-F 
    
Figure A17 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant LL-F 
    
Figure A18 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant MB-M 
    
Figure A19 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant MJ-F 
    
Figure A20 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant SG-M 
   
Figure A21 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant TB-M 
    
Figure A22 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant TI-F  
 
Figure A23 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant WS-M 
    
  
       
 
136 
 
137 
 
138 
 
139 
 
140 
 
141 
 
142 
 
143 
 
144 
 
145 
 
146 
 
147 
 
148 
 
149 
 
150 
 
151 
 
152 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Industrial Design Background 
 Industrial Design, also synonymous with product design, refers to the 
development and creation of sometimes life sustaining, entertaining, functional and mass 
produced products. The Industrial Design Society of America briefly defines industrial 
design as:  
Industrial design (ID) is the professional service of creating and developing 
concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of 
products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer. 
(www.idsa.org, 2006)   
 An industrial designer is a problem solver of issues regarding the design and 
development of products. These problems involve direction and specification throughout 
the development of the product. An industrial designer solves these problems to ensure 
that the result is a product that is both satisfactory to the manufacture and the user. The 
user is an important factor to consider in product problem solving. The product is subject 
to potential success and failure based on the users? purchasing decisions. The product 
development process according to Industrial Design: A Practicing Professional author, 
Philip H. Stevens (2002), can be categorized into 10 sequential phases: Conception of a 
need or idea, Research, Product Specification, Product Development Team, Concept 
 2
Development, Concept Refinement, Mock-up and Model Development, Prototype 
Development, Test Production Run and finally Full Production Begins. As Stevens goes 
on to explain the industrial designer?s function, ?The industrial designer creates 
something and it is his or her responsibility to make it beautiful to look (aesthetics) at and 
comfortable and safe to use (human factors)? (p. 7).  Because the industrial designer has 
such responsibility in creating products that are as beautiful as they are functional, it is 
the reactions of the user that can affect the success of the product. However, it would 
seem that the risk for failure would be greater without seeking the reactions of the user 
during the development of the product. For the purpose of this study, involving the user is 
an important factor in the evaluation and development of the product. The Usability 
Professionals? Association defines user-centered as: ?User-centered design (UCD) is an 
approach to design that grounds the process in information about the people who will use 
the product. UCD processes focus on users through the planning, design and development 
of a product.? (www.usabiltyprofessionals.org, 2006). This process if used during 
product development or evaluation would create a product that would ideally meet the 
needs of the user more than a process where users are not involved.  
 
1.2 Problem Statement 
 As identified in the design development process, there are phases in the process 
that define the direction the final product takes. In defining actions taken in the ?Concept 
Refinement? phase, Stevens states, ?Criticism of the proposed concept(s) is made by the 
product development team. Compromises are made and the best concept is refined. With 
 3
acceptance of a concept, engineers and industrial designers are free to begin work on the 
design.? (p.8) 
 The product development team uses current practices of determining the direction 
of their product based on available trend reports, company identity, user feedback and 
personal intuition. These practices, however, cannot provide a complete picture for the 
anticipated outcome. Many factors other than the product?s design contribute to the 
potential success and failure of the product. Involving the user throughout the design 
phase is one opportunity to reduce potential risk by designing a product with the user?s 
feedback. Current design evaluation methods such as interviews, dot-sticking, weighting 
and rating and the product development teams own evaluations seem to use 
communicated responses. It is important to understand the process in which these 
communicated responses are processed in the brain to further understand how these 
responses can have a critical effect on design. 
 The brain processes all information sent to it through messages that neurons carry 
to it. Inside the brain, the Central Nervous System (CNS) is communicating these 
messages to the various parts of the brain in which they are processed. The nervous 
system is composed of the CNS and the Peripheral Nervous System (PNS) and performs 
four basic functions: gathering information of outside and inside the body, transmitting 
this information to the specific areas of the brain, processing this information for the right 
response and sending out any information to the muscles and glands as a response 
(www.bbc.co.uk, 2006). The areas of the brain are divided into parts that perform certain 
functions. The Cerebrum, Cerebellum and Diencephalon are major parts of the brain that 
perform functions related to this study. The Cerebrum is the largest part of the brain in 
 4
which several areas within it process speech, thoughts, emotions, skilled movements, 
touch sensations like temperature and pain and hearing and memory storage. Another 
important area within the Cerebrum is the area called occipital lobe where visual images 
are interpreted. (www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/, 2006). Actions like interviews and 
dot sticking would be processed in the Cerebrum. In addition to the Cerebrum, the 
Cerebellum is important because the control of muscles, posture and precise movements 
originate here. The physical action of participating in design evaluation involves this part 
of the brain. The Diencephalon is a part of the brain that sits beneath the Cerebrum right 
above the brain stem. This part consists of the thalamus and hypothalamus which are 
important because involuntary bodily functions and actions occur from the messages sent 
to it from the body. Sensory nerve impulses send incoming messages to the parts of the 
brain to interpret and act upon. (www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/, 2006). 
Understanding how the brain processes information can effect how design evaluation 
methods are performed because this could influence how the information is processed.  
 The problem with design evaluation methods where the product development 
team interprets the physical or verbal outcomes is that the team is only seeing the 
outcome of how a person has interpreted the product within his or her brain. While this 
method can be sufficient in determining some kind of result or direction, a process that 
captures the internal processing of the information could provide an understanding of the 
user that current methods do not account for. Physical or verbal interpretations or 
outcomes in design evaluation can not perceive the emotional response that occurs during 
the design evaluation session. A method that analyzes both the users? physical and 
internal emotional responses would provide product development teams with a more 
 5
clear understanding of the user. This could result in more user-centered designed 
products and a higher potential for success. In researching design evaluation, it appears 
that there is not a method that considers these factors. A method that can consider how 
the brain processes information for design evaluation is needed to aid product 
development teams produce better products.  
 
1.3 Need for Study 
 Currently there are so many options to use in determining the selection of a final 
concept in the Concept Refinement phase that it makes the decision process much more 
of a risk. These options make it difficult to discern which option provides the best 
determining factors. The user?s physical responses vary from verbal expression of 
opinion, recorded choices through survey and physical action through processes such as 
dot sticking. Emotional, or internal responses, can provide another factor in design 
evaluation.  
 In both instances, it is difficult to fully understand the responses without the aid of 
those trained analyzing current methods and without biofeedback monitoring devices. 
Biofeedback is a process of ?...providing real time information from psychophysiological 
recordings about the levels at which physiological systems are functioning. 
(www.aapb.org, 2006). This means that the internal processing of information which can 
result in a form of emotional response, can be recorded using a biofeedback device.  
In The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio R. Damasio (1999), Damasio states: 
We do not need to be conscious of the inducer of an emotion and often are not, 
and we cannot control emotions willfully. You may find yourself in a sad or 
 6
happy state, and yet you may be at a loss as to why you are in that particular state 
now. A careful search may disclose possible causes, and one cause or another 
may be more likely, but often you cannon be certain. The actual cause may have 
been the image of an event, or image that had the potential to be conscious but 
just was not because you did not attend to it while you were attending to another. 
(p.42). 
 In concept evaluation, the concept acts as a stimulus that creates an emotion. This 
emotion is then translated into some display of public understanding with either verbal 
speech or with non-verbal action. If there is no recording of a user?s emotional response, 
then current design evaluation practices have no way of furthering the understanding of 
what stimulated his or her responses. A convincing factor for developing a method fully 
interprets the users? responses is that people are not always truthful. In Detecting Lies 
and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice, Vrij 
(2000) states that, ?People lie for several reasons. First, they lie in order to make a 
positive impression on others or to protect themselves from embarrassment or 
disappointment.? (p.8). Considering this statement in the use of current design evaluation 
methods suggests that a person may not translate his or her internal emotional response 
outwardly in a completely truthful manner. Biofeedback applications can provide 
methods of recording the internal process of translating emotional responses. These 
responses can be used by the product development team to make design evaluation 
decisions that affect product outcome.  
 This study describes the need for a more clear understanding of how user?s 
process and translate his or her responses to a product during design evaluation. By using 
 7
a method such as survey where the user has the opportunity to knowingly translate his or 
her response and a method of recording the user?s internal emotional response can 
provide feedback for product design that no other single method can produce. The study 
will also explain the uses of biofeedback technology practices and how the process can 
provide data that naturally can be integrated into the design evaluation process. The 
development of a product will demonstrate the use of this new biofeedback technology 
and survey integrated method and how it can be useful in the design evaluation phase.  
 
1.4 Literature Review 
 1.4.1 Identifying problem areas within the design of a product 
 The design of a product is a complex process that involves participants of specific 
backgrounds in business, engineering, manufacturing and industrial design. The process 
is intricate with many steps or phases of decision making in order to produce a product 
that meets the needs of the consumer. Stevens (2000) outlines ten general phases for the 
development of a product. Each of the phases generalizes the jobs and functions of each 
participant in the design process. Specifically in the Concept Refinement phase, we find 
that there is opportunity to make mistakes and areas for improvements.  
 Whereas Stevens refers to ?Concept Refinement? in his book as one of the phases 
a product passes through in development, this study will refer to the action as Design 
Evaluation. Design Evaluation is a process of critique. The product development team 
use processes of selection and comparison to arrive at the best possible solution that is 
believed to meet the needs of the consumer. These ideas can be presented using a variety 
of visual methods such as hand or computer generated sketches, or as models that are 
 8
either physical or photo realistically rendered using a 3-dimensional computer program. 
Whether the idea is in drawing form or in model form, through the design evaluation 
processes, a final idea or concept is selected by the product development team. Each team 
may use a different type of evaluation process to make a selection from the possible 
design solutions. The website, www.betterproductdesign.net (2006), provides several 
methods of design evaluation for product development teams. However, what this 
website and other resources confirm with their many different types of design evaluation 
methods is that there is not one design evaluation method that can produce results that 
would eliminate the need for multiple types of design evaluation.  
 
 1.4.2 What is design evaluation? 
 Participants in design development may contribute in the design evaluation phase 
by providing their opinion on possible design solutions presented to them. Product 
development teams may use potential users in requesting evaluation of their product in 
order to achieve future positive results with the user in the marketplace. User-centered 
design is about designing a product for the intended user with the feedback of the user 
throughout the design development phases of the product. User-centered design is a 
popular movement among design professionals and has significant advantages. Product 
development teams are confirming a product will be the right one with the user by 
inviting the user to assist in selecting the right solution.  
 While user-centered design and the use of design evaluation methods are standard 
practices in design evaluation by some designers, both processes rely on the individual 
participant?s action of expressing his or her opinion. The translation of the participant?s 
 9
opinion can either be under or over exaggerated and can greatly affect the final solution 
choice. Because the translation of communication has no measurement, the product 
development team must use caution in relying on such opinions.  
 
 1.4.3 Different processes in design evaluation 
 Both qualitative and quantitative methods can be helpful in providing data that 
can provide useful information to the product development team. All of the methods are 
intended to select a clear solution that the product development team can further develop. 
However, with each method used, there are advantages and disadvantages. Some typical 
examples of methods used in design evaluation are weighting and rating, dot-sticking, 
questionnaires, and focus groups.  
 In the use of weighting and rating as a design evaluation process, 
www.betterproductdesign.net, states that it is: ?The simplest and most commonly used 
form of concept selection. Easy to understand and apply, but demands reliable 
information to be truly effective.? In this process, important features are listed with 
weights assigned to each feature. The scores are then calculated and typically present a 
numerical winner. However, the website reminds potential users of this process that the 
numbers are subjective and arbitrary and do not provide a qualitative evaluation.  
 Another design evaluation process that, www.betterproductdesign.net, presents is 
called dot sticking.  
 The dot sticking approach is a good selection tool, when there a wide array of 
 potential or competing ideas as well as a large number of stakeholders. By 
 10
 allocating each stakeholder with a number of sticky 'dots', they can allocate one, 
 some or all of them to their preferred choice. (2006) 
 Dot sticking is a non-verbal form of communicating opinion. However, while 
there is measurement of the number of dots an idea may receive, there is no further 
understanding of the opinion of the individual who placed the dot on the selected idea. 
This form of design evaluation may be quantitative, but without questionnaire or 
interview follow-up, it lacks qualitative results that could have assisted the product 
development team in furthering the development of the product in a way that was more 
user-centered. 
 Questionnaires can be a useful design evaluation process by offering both 
quantitative and qualitative results. However, they cannot provide a measurement of a 
person?s true feelings towards the concepts they are evaluating. According to DeFleur, 
Kearney and Plax (1998),  
Structured questionnaires have advantages and disadvantages. Critics maintain 
that highly structured questionnaires lead participants lock-step through a series of 
rigidly posed questions, reducing their answers to categories and boxes. As a 
result, the participants? more subtle meanings, feelings, and perceptions are either 
lost or distorted. (p. 429) 
 Most questionnaires limit the possible response a user can make. This is because 
evaluators must use one of many question types and scales in order to produce a 
measurable data result. With a questionnaire using either type of question and scale 
measurement, a product development team does not get the opportunity to understand the 
opinion or mindset of the user. While verbal communication is not involved, the 
 11
information the user provides the product development team, is subject to the same 
translation as is verbal communication. This type of quantitative data has limited 
applications into possible changes a product development team can make that would 
create a more user-centered product.  
 The focus group is a qualitative research method that can be used during the 
design development phase to help the product development team. Christopher Ireland 
(2003), defines the traditional focus group in his article, ?Qualitative Methods: From 
Boring to Brilliant?, as:  
A gathering of 10 to 12 consumers who are led in a tightly scripted discussion by 
a trained moderator, usually for about 2 hours. Originally used for any topic or 
purpose, they are now recommended primarily when you want to generate ideas 
and/or expand understanding without needing to reach consensus. (Ireland, pg 
24). 
 This type of group interview is used to assist the product development team in 
either understanding consumer reactions or to help them understand ways to improve 
their existing products.  
One of the common uses of the group interview is in the development of new 
products. In an early stage of new-product development, occasionally the 
technique of determining consumer reactions and objections to existing products 
can help lead to new-product modification. Early checking of reactions to a new-
product idea (concept testing) through the group method may also be useful in 
gauging reactions to a new product. (Blankenship, Breen, Dutka, 1998, p. 141) 
 12
 While Blankenship, Breen and Dutka state the above from their book, State of the 
art Marketing Research that a focus group can be useful, Thomas L. Greenbaum (1998), 
states in his book, Handbook for Focus Group Research that: ?Many focus groups are 
intended to learn what is wrong about products or service in order to make the 
appropriate changes to improve it...The mistake here is that the regular users of a product 
or service are normally quite satisfied with it and have relatively minor dissatisfactions. 
(p. 62) 
 The problem with both statements is that the product development team or the 
participants using the findings from the group study are evaluating the content of the 
verbal expression. The participant is then bringing his or her own understanding and bias 
to the statement to arrive at a conclusion of what has been said. ?The biggest analytical 
mistake that people make is to enter the research with a preconceived bias and to listen 
for inputs from group participants that confirm their belief. Unfortunately, this mistake is 
quite common in focus group research.? (Greenbaum, 1998, p. 68) 
 Bruce Crandell (1999), in his article, ?To Focus Group, or not to Focus Group?, 
on www.decisionanalyst.com gives examples of reasons to perform focus group research. 
?There?s nothing quite as powerful as actually seeing and hearing what someone else 
truly thinks about your product or service. Additionally, groups are often videotaped, 
allowing observers and others to review them later on.? (www.decisionanalyst.com, 
1999). 
 When a product development team uses the information gathered from focus 
group research, they are able to make assumptions from what they have witnessed and 
translate those into results that may or may not be apparent in the designed product. The 
 13
problem again with focus group research is that it makes the product development team 
translate verbal communication into what they need at that point of the design 
development. If the consumers who participated in the focus group propose the color blue 
for the product but also believe it should have a different appearance and the product 
development team translates the information as needing to make their product blue, they 
may or may not have positive results with the user in the marketplace. The product 
development team relies on the communication between focus group participants which 
is not an accurate form of measurement needed to confirm the product will be user-
centered and have positive results with the user in the market.  
 All of these design evaluation processes provide some kind quantitative and 
qualitative result that the product development team can use to further the design 
development process. However, these results can not provide a recorded measurement of 
the user?s true thoughts and emotions toward the ideas being evaluated.  
 
 1.4.4 Why do product development teams use design evaluation? 
 Baxter provides necessary insight into the importance of understanding the 
consumer in product design with his statements regarding how orienting the product?s 
design and development to be user-centered. His book also suggests that the consumers? 
buying habits will be effected by the designs of products when user-centered products 
begin to be more available and understood that the product has been designed using user 
feedback.   
 In one of Baxter?s statements ?Product development must be fundamentally and 
comprehensively customer oriented.? (p.26), it would seem that in order to achieve this, 
 14
design evaluation must accurately insure that the developing product is in fact customer 
oriented. Success depends on the consumers and their reactions to the product. If a 
product development team can use design evaluation methods to increase success with 
the consumer, then the product development team is more likely to choose concepts that 
are in line with a consumer?s positive reactions. By using gathered information from 
design evaluation to discover which ideas appeal most to users and what will be accepted 
by the user, the product development team can then design a product that is most in line 
with those thoughts of the user. Product development teams need this information in 
order to reach their target audience. By involving the user in the design evaluation phase 
to gather such information, the product development team can better understand how well 
they have reached their audience, or how much more work they need to do in order to 
appeal to them. Additional work may include revisiting the scope of the project including 
product specifications or revising minor concept details in a way that may be more 
understandable. Either way, the product development team needs to demonstrate an 
understanding of the user?s wants and needs so that in the evaluation phase, the user can 
understand what is being communicated.  
 
 1.4.5 The significance of design evaluation in designing user-centered  
 products  
 Using design evaluation is significant in creating user-centered products. Because 
users? reactions to the products can affect a product?s success, both usability and aesthetic 
value are important factors to evaluate. Don Norman, an author of evaluated consumer 
products and co-founder of the Nielson Norman Group, a product and service 
 15
consultancy has the following to say about product design: ?Good design means that 
beauty and usability are in balance. An object that is beautiful to the core in no better than 
one that is only pretty if they both lack usability.? (www.jnd.org, 2002). If the product 
development team can implement methods to find the balance Don Norman describes, 
then a product?s success should be an attainable goal. However, the method in which this 
balance is achieved must be able to capture the user?s needs. Product success can be 
achieved using a method that implements user-centered product design evaluation 
throughout product development. The reactions the users are able to provide through 
evaluation methods should be the key to the product?s success. 
 
 1.4.6 Identifying opportunities for potential risk and success 
 Baxter?s text also lends insight into the necessity to evaluate goals the product 
development team should set and understand. The designer?s role in creating successful 
products is partially dependent on how well they understand the audience they are 
designing for as well as an understanding of the market.  
Setting clear and realistic targets for new products provides the vision of what that 
product must achieve to be successful. The most important targets are those 
demanded or wished for by customers...Designers who fail to set targets will 
indeed ?see no evil? but they also will fail to see what they must achieve in order 
for the new product to succeed. (p. 4) 
 A designer must use a design evaluation method that can best understand the 
consumer in order to alleviate the product development team?s risk for failure in the 
development of the product. Norman (2001) in his essay ?Applying the Behavioral, 
 16
Cognitive, and Social Sciences to Products? states, ?Design is a complex business, not 
only because the products themselves are complex but because of the complexity of 
people and their needs.?(www.jnd.org, 2001). This statement is significant in that design 
evaluation becomes even more important. Each phase of development such as drawing, 
rendering and modeling become opportunities for implementing user-centered design 
evaluation. These opportunities to gather users? responses would give the product 
development team a better indication of how the consumer might possible react to the 
product once developed. Emotional responses could provide the necessary tool to reduce 
the potential for risk and increase the potential for success.  
 
 1.4.7 Using design evaluation to reaffirm the concept is valuable to the 
 consumer 
 In the early design development phases, targets, goals and specifications are set 
that identify the consumers? needs and desires in the products they use. Design evaluation 
that involves the users in a way as to record their emotional responses, in chart form will 
assist the product being developed in meeting the customer?s satisfaction. With so many 
methods of design evaluation it appears that there are few that can capture a consumers? 
emotional reactions. Methods that do not account for emotional response cannot 
completely represent the user?s true intent. For example, with methods such as group 
interviews, designers must extract and interpret responses which can have a potentially 
problematic effect on the design of a product. A design evaluation process that confirms 
product value and meets user?s desires and needs by using recorded emotional responses 
 17
in real time will help designers create customer-oriented, user-centered, successful 
products. 
 
 1.4.8 Design evaluation criteria 
 In order to enhance the current practice of using design evaluation methods, 
criteria must be presented to understand how product development teams could integrate 
a new process that provides a complete response from a user. The arguments in this paper 
have presented several of the needs for a new evaluation process.  
 Criteria for this new evaluation process must consider multiple areas of the brain 
that process information and the responses that result. Because the results are both 
external and internal, methods that capture both results are necessary. A survey has the 
ability to capture the external response and a GSR test has the ability to capture the 
emotional response that takes place inside the brain and body. An advantage to this new 
evaluation process will be that the product development team can better understand the 
users and apply their responses to providing successful user-centered products. Product 
development teams could use the new, more comprehensive method, in every phase of 
design evaluation, from concepts to physical models, to best gain access into possible 
changes they need to make based on the responses of the user. The users? responses 
would aid product development teams in understanding how well they have met their 
goals of reaching and appealing to the user. Advancements in Biofeedback have created 
the basis for this study. This Biofeedback based design evaluation has the potential to 
provide a more clear understanding of a user?s preference towards products.  
 
 18
 1.4.9 What is biofeedback? 
 Biofeedback is an important tool in capturing emotional responses. This kind of 
tool for design evaluation can also be defined as: 
Biofeedback is providing real time information from psychophysiological recordings 
about the levels at which physiological systems are functioning. Biofeedback does 
not need to involve the use of computers, electronic devices etc. For example, a 
mirror is a perfectly good biofeedback device for many aspects of gait retraining. 
Electronic biofeedback devices are designed to record physiological functions non-
invasively. Most record from the surface of the skin. The information recorded by 
surface sensors is frequently sent to a computer for processing and then displayed on 
the monitor and/or through speakers. The person being recorded and any therapist or 
coach who may be present can attend to the display of information and incorporate it 
into what ever process they are attempting to perform. The device does not send 
anything directly back into the person being recorded. (www.aapb.org, 2006). 
 Biofeedback can also be used to help people who may have certain medical 
conditions ranging from headaches to high blood pressure to paralysis. These people, 
with the aid of therapists, are able to train their bodies and improve their condition based 
on the biofeedback signals they receive. Biofeedback dates back to the 1960?s when it 
became a term associated with the training of the body based on brain activity, heart rate, 
muscle impulses and other bodily functions. Some biofeedback techniques and practices 
have a longer history dating back 100 years.  
 19
 Biofeedback devices as mentioned above do in fact range from extremely 
complicated and uncomfortable for the user to simple non-evasive hand held devices. All 
devices have the potential to gather feedback that can contribute to helping the user.  
 Neurofeedback is a specific term associated with the study and training of brain 
activity and function. This is an important biofeedback method that has gained popularity 
among design related disciplines. Neuromarketing is a new term in which scientists are 
studying to understand the buyer better. By studying the brain, they are able to better 
understand which parts of the brain process buy and want and need. According to an 
article by Carrie Peyton Dahlberg for the Sacramento Bee, she quotes the following:  
As hard as merchandisers try to fathom customers, behavior remains so hard for 
businesses to predict that, ?from their point of view, consumers are like some kind 
of random, finicky cat,? said Colin Camerer, a professor of business economics at 
the California Institute of Technology. 
?Neuromarketing is kind of like interviewing the brain," he said. "Instead of just 
asking people what they want, you go right to the brain process.? (February 6, 
2004). 
 The process of neuromarketing is similar to the process needed for a new design 
evaluation method. Instead of asking people whether they like the idea or not, design 
evaluation needs to go right to the source, the brain. Currently, neuromarketing involves 
the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI machines. These machines 
are large, heavy, loud and uncomfortable machines that do not fit in with the criteria the 
new design evaluation process wishes to take. With the discovery of biofeedback 
methods and the data gathering techniques, the following defined area of GSR (GSR) 
 20
testing could prove to provide valuable data. This data will allow product development 
teams to understand the user?s true reaction to pictures, models and questions without the 
need for a verbally communicated answer. 
 
 1.4.10 What is GSR? 
  GSR is a biofeedback method that is able to measure skin resistance. According 
to Peter Shepard (2006), Transformational Psychologist and author of articles on the 
website, www.trans4mind.com, has the following explanation of how GSR is a 
biofeedback method: 
 The most advanced layers of the cortex, unique to Man, link to the thumb and 
forefinger especially, and there is a further complex physiological response which 
occurs when the forebrain is aroused. Changes in Alpha rhythms cause blood 
capillaries to enlarge, and this too affects resistance. (www.trans4mind.com, 2006) 
The connection between the brain and forefinger can provide understandable results 
when the GSR test is conducted.  A psycho-galvanometer was an early tool that measured 
the skin?s resistance through a small electrical current through the fingers. Over the 
course of the last 25 years, advancements have been made in understanding GSR and 
what causes the change in the skin?s resistance.  
 It has been known for decades that the magnitude of this electrical resistance is 
affected, not only by the subject's general mood, but also by immediate emotional 
reactions. Although these facts have been known for over a hundred years and the 
first paper to be presented on the subject of the psycho-galvanometer was written by 
Tarchanoff in 1890. (www.trans4mind.com, 2006) 
 21
 In design evaluation, having the ability to measure a user?s emotional reactions 
through GSR would transform the ability to design better products for the user. As an 
example of how GSR testing and design evaluation could interact to produce results, a 
user would only have to have their forefinger connected to small electrodes and when a 
question or picture is presented, the user only has to have an emotional reaction. The 
psycho-galvanometer would be able to understand the significance or degree to which the 
user responded. If the user was asked the question of ?do you like this? to several 
concepts, the product development team would be able to understand which concept the 
user responded to with the most reaction. This procedure meets criteria of reducing 
possible user bias by eliminating verbal response. It also keeps the user comfortable and 
in a setting that is non-evasive, unlike the use of fMRI machines in nueromarketing. GSR 
testing has promising use in transforming design evaluation. 
 
 1.4.11 How can GSR aid design evaluation?  
 GSR is a process that can measure a user?s reaction to presented stimuli. In the 
case of design evaluation, the stimuli are concepts the product development team needs 
evaluation on. Whereas old methods of design evaluation do not offer recorded emotional 
response data to base decisions on, there is the opportunity to use the GSR biofeedback 
method as a way to accomplish this. The GSR tests provide recorded data without the use 
of externally transmitted responses. This test records the emotional response a person 
interprets internally when asked questions or presented with visual material. Traditional 
forms of evaluation gather the external expression and translation of responses that a 
product development team can then translate into decision making material. 
 22
Understanding both kinds of responses gathered through design evaluation can allow the 
product development team to make decisions. GSR can aid this process with the 
emotional response data that it captures.  
 
 1.4.12 Potential outcomes for use of GSR and or in design evaluation  The 
use of GSR when incorporated into Design Evaluation could reduce the risk of the 
product development team?s potential for failure. Baxter (1995) confirms the need to 
invest in the early stages of development. ?Of all the stages in new product development, 
the most important are the initial stages.? (p. 26) 
 By investing in biofeedback techniques that provide measured data throughout the 
design evaluation phase, the development team will reduce the possibility of needing to 
make changes to the design in the later phases of design development. If biofeedback 
processes are used throughout various stages of design evaluation such as drawings, 
renderings or models, each decision will have recorded reactions of potential users to 
help the product development team base their decisions on. Emotional responses from 
consumers as a basis for decisions should provide success for the designer and in the 
marketplace.  
 
 1.4.13 Conclusions 
 The product development team can now utilize biofeedback as a method to aid 
design decisions. Understanding the emotional responses from potential product 
consumers will aid in the reduction of failure among these consumers. The feedback that 
these users provide through externally and internally transmitted responses will help 
 23
transform the way in which products are designed for users. The goal of incorporating 
both a traditional method and a new method for design evaluation is better products for 
the consumer and a degree of success for the designer. The use of biofeedback that gets 
into the internal processing minds of users will begin to change potential buying habits 
and design trends. Designers should see this movement as a way to better meet the needs 
of the consumer and the biofeedback methods as one way of understanding the why of 
buy and the minds of the consumer. The combination of design evaluation methods that 
provide feedback for product development teams that no other single method can provide 
can change current methods and current market products. The possibilities for this study 
are optimistic and extensive, but have the potential to create a foundation for future 
development and changes in design evaluation. 
 
1.5 Objectives of Study 
? To gather all necessary information from books, periodicals, CDs and Internet 
sites on Design Evaluation, Market Research, Communication, GSR, CNS and 
PNS 
? To identify common current evaluation methods 
? To formulate a new design evaluation method using biofeedback devices 
? To set up a preliminary test using the biofeedback devices to test which device or 
combination produces the best measurements 
? To identify and design MP4 players to be used as the concepts to be evaluated 
? To identify a select group of students to evaluate the chosen designs and to have 
their evaluations measured using biofeedback devices 
? To chart the findings of each student?s evaluations and decipher the supporting 
value to the design evaluation method 
 24
? Develop and use a survey to gather voluntary data from users following the 
biofeedback design evaluation experiment 
? To produce papers to be published containing this new concept of design 
evaluation 
? To produce a final documentation that completes the Thesis requirements required 
by the graduate school at Auburn University 
 
1.6 Definition of Terms 
 
Biofeedback 
 
? Biofeedback is a term associated with the training of the body based on brain 
activity, heart rate, muscle impulses and other bodily functions. Methods of 
biofeedback include Electroencephalogram (EEG), and Electromyogram (EMG). 
Some simple biofeedback techniques and practices have been available for over 
100 years.  
Central Nervous System (CNS) 
 
? The Central Nervous System is part of a person?s nervous system in which a 
body?s responses are voluntary and controlled such as muscle movements and 
conscious decision making. 
Cerebellum 
? The second largest part of the brain. This area controls muscular movement, 
posture and precise movements.  
Cerebrum 
? The largest part of the brain. This area controls functions such as speech, 
emotions, touch sensations and memory storage among other specific functions.  
 
 25
Concept Refinement/Design Evaluation 
 
? The phase in the development of a product in which ideas are continually refined 
through methods of evaluation until a final idea or product is the result. 
Design Development Process 
 
? The process of developing a product. The design of the product can go through 
several processes before production and made available to the public. 
Diencephalon 
? Part of the brain that is located just above the brain stem. Contains the thalamus 
and hypothalamus regions that transmit various sensory impulses in and outside 
the body to specified areas of the brain.  
Product development team 
 
? The team of professionals including engineers, designers, users, business 
professionals and anyone involved in the development of a product. 
Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) 
 
? An example of a biofeedback method that is able to measure skin resistance 
through a connection of electrodes to the fingers. Devices can provide recordings 
or audible indicators to the state of the person?s reactive levels to stimuli. 
Emotional responses such as fear, anger, and love can be detected through 
devices, although they can not be specifically identified. 
Industrial Design  
 
? Industrial design (ID) is the professional service of creating and developing 
concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of 
 26
products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer. 
(www.idsa.org)   
MP4 Player  
 
? An electronic device in which mpeg 4 video files can be played. Similar in nature 
to a MP3 player that plays mpeg 3 audible files. 
Peripheral Nervous System (PNS) 
? The PNS comprises other part of the Nervous System that controls involuntary 
functions. These functions include monitoring bodily temperature and response to 
emotional stimulus. 
User-Centered 
 
? User involvement in the design and development of a product with a focus on 
meeting the needs of the user. 
 
1.7 Assumptions 
 Assumptions are factors that this study uses to support the need for research and 
further investigation. Each following statement is an assumption based on research.  
 Product development has many phases and can be modified at any instance of 
design. During Concept Refinement, all design evaluation processes and methods will be 
performed. No complete, whole body response measurement process is currently in use 
for the selection of a final concept. Biofeedback would provide measurement of reactions 
from the peripheral nervous system while surveys would provide measurement of 
reactions from the central nervous system. Biofeedback equipment will not frighten or be 
uncomfortable to the user. The user will not know the individual results of their 
 27
evaluation. The visual survey used in conjunction with the biofeedback technology will 
be based on a nonscientific organization process and will need refinement. The process of 
presenting concepts to the user during biofeedback evaluation can also be applied to the 
presentation of models or functions. It is also assumed that the data generated cannot 
provide a concrete answer towards understanding the user?s reactions. It is also possible 
that there are additional methods of conducting the study sessions that could impact the 
results of the study. For this study, it is assumed that the results generated are a step 
towards gathering a whole reaction from the user.  
 Additional assumptions that are not based on research include the potential to 
have great effect on the design and biofeedback communities. This research will be 
conducted in a neutral setting on the Auburn University campus. This thesis work could 
have potential to expand into additional areas of research and expand into allied areas of 
design. It also has value that could impact the commercial markets as a way of impacting 
methods of design evaluation. 
 
1.8 Scope and Limitations 
 1.8.1 Scope. 
? The biofeedback methods utilized will only be methods that have been proven to 
provide the desired results of measuring and recording response to stimulus.  
? The equipment used will only be the basic units that will provide the best, most 
usable and understandable results. Expensive equipment is not necessary to 
achieve the same results. 
 28
? It is the opinion of the author and advising faculty that the illustrating concepts of 
MP4 players as of June 2006 represent a product that is not as widely used in the 
United States yet but is an established product in the UK and Asia. The concept 
evaluation of this product will provide feedback that would be similar if a new 
market product were being introduced. 
? Auburn University students will be invited to participate. There is no statistical 
data used in the formation of this experimental group used as evaluators of the 
MP4 player concepts. 
 
 1.8.2 Limitations.  
The limitations imposed on developing and completing the research is as follows: 
Cost  
? The cost of some of the more advanced Biofeedback equipment is too expensive 
for use in initial testing. Testing using less expensive equipment will produce the 
same results but possibly without detailed graphics or extensive software 
interaction. 
Demographic of Groups 
? No personal information and background on the participants will be collected. 
Because of this, it is impossible to know the demographic background of each 
participant and how that can affect the outcome of the research.  
Understanding of Technology 
? The Biofeedback technologies used are basic and understandable. However, 
because no professional training in using these devices took place, results from 
 29
the individual sessions may not be fully actualized. As well, composition of the 
surveys in conjunction with the way the equipment works may produce varied 
results.  
Product Production 
? The design process demonstrated in this study is an example of what design 
professionals may duplicate in practice. The product produced in this study, 
because of technology limitation, can only reach the level of pre-prototype.  
 
1.9 Procedures and Methods 
Step 1 
? Information from books, periodicals, CDs, and Internet sites on design evaluation 
methods and biofeedback technology, practices and information supporting the 
areas of the brain used in evaluation are needed to support this research topic. In 
addition, an understanding of a product area and target audience to study also 
needs to be identified.  
? Research will be conducted using library search engines for books, periodicals, 
and CDs that will assist in gathering supportive materials that identify a niche 
area within design evaluation that needs improvement. The Internet searches will 
also help to understand complex information regarding Biofeedback. The internet 
will also aid in identifying the ideal product that meets the needs of this study. 
Step 2 
? Identify the ideal product to use as an example during design evaluation. Gather 
information on existing products and sketch using Photoshop and a wacom tablet, 
 30
ten existing products and ten new products of my own design. This will help in 
providing a choice of 20 products that are all presented in a similar manner. These 
sketches will be used in the first round of testing using biofeedback technologies.  
Step 3 
? By identifying GSR as the best technology to use in the design evaluation process, 
it is important to locate a GSR product that will be accommodating of both budget 
and level of understanding.  
? Conduct preliminary testing using a prepared timed PowerPoint presentation with 
the GSR device. Make changes based on feedback from initial test. 
Step 4 
? Identify students for participation in study. Invite students to participate in four to 
five study sessions during the development of the product. Each session will aid 
in the development of the final product.  
Step 5 
? At each session the student participates in, the student will come into the office 
and will have his or her fingers connected to the GSR devices. He or she will then 
proceed to watch a timed PowerPoint Presentation of the prepared materials. 
When the PowerPoint concludes, the student will be given a picture survey to fill 
out. The picture survey will ask for the student?s reactions in number form to the 
concepts in the PowerPoint Presentation. Each session should not last longer than 
10 minutes. The student is free to leave upon the conclusion of the session.  
Step 6 
 31
? Following the completion of all the sessions, the charts will be saved into JPEG 
format to present in an Excel Spreadsheet. Each GSR chart will be matched with 
numerical values of the picture survey. The picture survey results will be 
averaged to establish a numerical winner. The study will begin with 20 concept 
sketches and will then proceed to five computer models. The numerical results 
will present the top choices for the next session. The third session will present 
three computer rendered models and three prototypes. The results from the third 
session will conclude with one final model. The final session will present the final 
model, both computer generated and in final prototype form. The participant will 
have the opportunity to evaluate the final model in comparison to a successful 
product currently on the market. This comparison product will also be computer 
modeled and prototyped to present a similarity in quality.  
Step 7 
? Present final conclusions to both groups and Thesis committee. Turn in final 
documentation of Thesis for Graduation. 
? Create a presentation of all the work from generated sketches through final model, 
including user reactions generated through GSR and visual survey. The Thesis 
committee will evaluate the presentation and research prior to the Thesis 
submission by the graduate school. If approval is given, prepare the final 
documentation according to the graduate schools standards and submit to the 
graduate school by given deadline 
 
 
 32
1.10 Anticipated Outcomes 
 This research depends on several factors. Each anticipated outcome is dependent 
on the previous outcome. Below are the anticipated outcomes in the order in which they 
are projected.  
1. Through research on design evaluation, a new method for evaluation will be 
formulated 
2. This new method for design evaluation will include biofeedback procedures for 
gathering feedback and an existing survey method 
3. Biofeedback devices will be tested to insure their accurate measurement of 
reaction to design concepts 
4. It is projected that the biofeedback devices and method for testing using design 
concepts will produce data that corresponds with a traditional survey method. The 
result will be a whole reaction produced from the central nervous system and the 
peripheral nervous system 
5. The selected experimental group only represents members within the target 
audience; however, no statistical or personal background information is collected.  
6. The results will produce only one view of how collecting information from the 
CNS and PNS correspond in the area of design evaluation 
 
1.11 Deliverables 
 This research will result in a one model for using biofeedback for design 
evaluation. Several products will result from the completed research and experiment. 
These include the following.  
 33
1. One method for using biofeedback devices in regards to design evaluation. 
2. A complete set of MP4 Player drawings, 3-D computer models and details of 
function renderings. 
3. A test environment with biofeedback devices in a setting that is neutral and 
comfortable to the evaluator.  
4. Data from all of the participants in graph form to provide a visual for the varying 
degree in differences. 
 
1.12 Speculations 
 This research is possibly uncovering a new area of combining existing methods 
into a process that provides a complete picture of user reactions. This could have both 
positive and negative effects on society. First the positive affects being the creation of 
products that the manufacturer knows the consumer will react positively to and purchase. 
This effect could prove to have a tremendous effect on trends. If the consumer begins to 
have heavy influence on the aesthetics of the product, then products may begin to have 
very similar features. This research could also affect the consumer?s purchasing habits if 
this procedure were to be used with every consumer product. Consumers may begin to 
plan their purchases specifically to the release dates of products. Some consumers 
currently practice this habit in regards to electronics, but this habit could extend to the 
next blender. This could also be a negative effect. The economy is powered by the 
consumer and changes in the consumer?s habit could effect the economy?s strength. 
Another possible negative affect and consequences could be that after all this research 
and the proof to which we provide with testing, is that no one is interested in using such 
 34
technology and reasoning to change the way they conduct design evaluation. These 
possibilities could all have different outcomes given a difference in the Limitations. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35
2. SESSION 1 EXPERIMENT 
2.1 Preparation 
 There are four design evaluation sessions that relate in this study to four idealized 
phases of the design process. The first session is the most crucial because it is not also the 
results that are important but also how the session is designed. Experiences learned from 
each session can have a significant impact on the outcome of the experiment.  
 
2.1 Participant Recruitment and Involvement 
 Each of the design evaluation sessions was set up with the participant in mind an 
in meeting the requirements set by Auburn University Institutional Review board for 
Research involving Human Subjects. The participants were in the age group of 19-27yrs 
of age and the likely target user of a media device such as an MP3 music file player. 
These participants are Auburn University Students and have schedules that include 
classes and possible work and organizational activities. Taking these considerations into 
account, a time limit of no more than 10 minutes was set to increase the potential for 
participation. 20 non-design University major participants were recruited to participate in 
the study. The ten males and ten females were of varying ages within the constraints of 
19-27yrs of age and of varying majors and interests on campus. Some of the participants 
were previously known by the principle investigator.  
 
 36
2.2 Experiment design 
 The first session contained the beginning design phases for the development of an 
MP4 video file player. 20 MP4 player sketches were prepared in advance for the 
integration into a presentation for the first session. Based on an initial understanding of 
the GSR process of capturing real time responses to stimuli, it was important to create a 
presentation of the material in a manner that allowed direct correlation to take place when 
the session was complete. The GSR software has the ability to record the session and 
recall the chart at a later time. The material was prepared in a PowerPoint Presentation 
with rehearsed timings. These timings would later be recalled to correspond to the GSR 
recorded chart.  
 This first session presentation began with a very simple introduction to the 
project, what design project would be evaluated, and some instructions to follow once the 
sketches were presented. The first minute included pictures that were intended to measure 
the individual?s emotional levels of response to stimulus. Each of these sets of pictures 
was intended to evoke emotions of sadness, anger and a neutral resting state. However, in 
preliminary testing, it was found that the color images were distracting from the sketches 
that followed. It was also observed that the individuals had no noticeable emotional 
response to the variety of pictures. It was decided to change the pictures to black and 
white and replace the pictures that were potentially negative for pictures that were more 
positive and or neutral. These changes would bring the person to a neutral state of 
emotional arousal which provided better results when the participant began to view the 
20 sketches.  
 
 37
 
Figure 2.1 - Preliminary Session 1 PowerPoint Presentation 
 38
 
Figure 2.2 - Actual Session 1 PowerPoint Presentation 
 39
 The 20 sketches were done in a similar manner to ensure that no one sketch was 
more visually appealing than the others. Ten of sketches were of existing MP4 players 
that are popular around Europe and Asia and the other ten sketches were of the 
researcher?s design. By providing a combination of potential products to choose from, it 
would be interesting to see the results of which were most preferred, existing or potential 
products. In the presentation, the 20 sketches follow a series of neutral pictures. Then, the 
sketches are shown for approximately five seconds. In preliminary testing, neutral 
pictures were place in between the sketches. However, this was changed because it 
increased the time and, even though neutral, they had little to no effect on the reaction to 
the following sketch. These pictures were deemed pointless and were eliminated from the 
series of sketches.  
 A picture survey of the 20 sketches follows the GSR session. The participant is 
asked to assign a value to each of the 20 sketches. The first 5 sketches and their rankings 
are presented in the picture survey format in Figure 2.3.
 40
 
Figure 2.3 - Session 1 Picture Survey Example 
 41
2.3 Anticipated Outcome 
1. It is anticipated that it will be unknown if the participant owns or has had 
experience with a media device such as an MP3 player. 
2. It will be unknown the activities or conditions that the participant encountered or 
participated in prior to arriving at the session. It will also be unknown the 
participants stress level, emotional state or physical ailments at the time of 
participation. These conditions can all have effects on the participant?s ability to 
respond to the stimulus.  
3. It is projected that the design of the session in which the 20 sketches are presented 
is designed in the best way to derive at a response from the participant.  
4. It is anticipated that the material needs to be presented as quick as reasonable 
possible so that the participant does not become bored.  
5. Each participant?s GSR chart of responses to the first session is expected to be 
understandable enough to provide a result. 
6. The anticipated outcome from the participant?s picture survey is expected to 
correspond to the responses on the GSR charts. 
7. It is projected that the five sketches that are preferred the most based on the 
results of the GSR charts and picture surveys are each different and unique. 
 
2.4 Deliverables 
1. A Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation including the above mentioned changes to 
the presentation of sketches. 
2. 20 different sketches of MP4 players 
 42
3. 20 GSR charts, 1 from each participant 
4. 20 picture surveys with results marked from each participant 
 
2.5 Actual Findings 
 Each GSR chart and coordinating picture survey for each participant was 
analyzed and recorded. After each participant?s results were recorded, the data was 
looked at as a whole and analyzed. The findings from the picture survey were easily 
understandable. Each participant was able to provide numerical winners. The GSR charts 
were more difficult to understand. Results from individual participants varied. For 
example, in the portion of the survey where the sketches are presented, at the top of each 
slide is a question that asks if the participant would like to own this MP4 player? The 
participants were instructed to respond silently to this question. It was thought that by 
responding with a ?Yes, I would like to own this MP4 player? or ?No, I would not like to 
own this MP4 player?, there would be a clear response shown on the GSR chart. For 
some individuals, there was no noticeable response and for some, there was. Below are 
two charts that represent participants with no noticeable reaction and one with clear, 
noticeable reactions to the stimuli. 
 
 
 43
 
Figure 2.4 - Session 1 GSR Chart Dissection & Explanation 
 44
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.5 - Session 1 Chart Example 
 
            This chart shows that at the beginning of the session, the participant?s emotional 
reaction levels were raised. As the session progressed, the individual became more 
relaxed and therefore his or her emotional reaction levels decreased. This had a direct 
relation to his or her ability to respond to the stimulus. The amount of time in which 
the participant was exposed to pictures via the same medium (the computer screen) 
could possibly have affected his or her ability to respond because he or she had 
become bored with the stimulus. No data was able to be collected from this particular 
chart. The participant?s picture survey was the only way to understand his or her 
preference to the material.  
 
 45
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.6 ? Session 1 Chart Example  
 
          This participant was clearly aware of the stimulus and was able to maintain 
emotional reaction levels. The bars separating the numbers indicated the time period 
the participant was viewing the particular sketch. It is easy to view this chart and 
speculate which sketches the participant had the greatest reaction to. In understanding 
the GSR?s abilities, it is known that it is impossible to understand if the greatest 
reaction is a positive or negative reaction. The GSR is only able to record emotional 
reactions. However, when comparing the GSR chart to the picture survey, it is then 
possible to understand how positively or negatively the participant reacted to that 
particular sketch.  
 46
 The GSR and picture survey results from Session 1 were interesting. As stated 
previously, it was unknown whether or not the participant had any previous interaction or 
ownership of a media device. It is believed that the majority of the participants did in fact 
own a popular MP3 player and this affected their initial decisions. Refer to the 
similarities noted in Figure 2.8 to see the first product of preference has Apple Ipod 
design influences. In figure 2.7, the numerical data gathered from the picture surveys 
places each sketch in an order of preference.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 47
5.98.27.24.44.8 6 4.43
2 3 18 6 1 15 20
Session 1 Preference Averages :
Order of Preference (Concept #):
3.5 3.9 3.4 4.9 4.1 3.1 3.8 5.7 2.8 5.5 6.1 3.8 5.7
5 1117 4 7 9 12 8 1013141916
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.7 ? Session 1 Data Presentation 
  Data is presented is order of averages from participants? scores. The second row 
in the figure places each of the concepts in order of its numerical average beginning with 
the concept that received the highest average of scores.  
 
Session 1 Most Preferred Concept Sketches 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
  
 
Figure 2.8 ? Session 1 Concept Sketch Results in Preference Order 
 These are the results from averaging the participant?s scores are represented in 
visual form. The process of averaging was done as one way of sorting through the 
numerical data gathered from the visual surveys. While this is only one method of data 
analysis, the development of the products used this form as the main form due to time 
constraints.  
 48
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fe ma le
Figure 2.8 ? Concept 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fema le
Figure 2.9 ? Concept 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fema le
Figure 2.10 ? Concept 18
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fema le
Figure 2.11 ? Concept 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fema le
Figure 2.12 ? Concept 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fema le
Figure 2.13 ? Concept 15
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fema le
Figure2.14 ? Concept 20
  
These bar graphs are numbers from the 
seven concept sketches that received the 
highest averages. These numbers came 
from the scores both male and female 
student participants gave during the 
picture survey. 
 49
 In the figures 2.9-2.14, each of the top 7 concepts identified in Figure 2.8 by 
averaging were further analyzed by separating votes of the female participants from the 
men participants. While the individual figures represent the similarities and difference in 
scores per concept and per men vs. female, the numbers the concepts have in common 
represent the top 7 concepts most preferred. Further investigation using numbers by 
gender could lead to interesting research. However, because this study focuses on the 
development of the technique, gender specific product development was not included.  
 
2.6 Discussion  
 There were many conclusions that were drawn from every aspect of this first 
session. These conclusions were positive in helping to create a more complete 
experiment. The introductory pictures seemed to be neither simulating nor relaxing and 
only added to the time in which the participant was shown images. The lack of changes in 
material presentation contributed to the lack of stimulation. Because of this, the Session 2 
PowerPoint presentation was changed by eliminating the introductory images and by 
changing up the time and images the participant would see. The selected sketches 
provided a variety of options to further develop in Session 2. However, there seemed to 
be an overwhelming response to the first sketch. Memories and associations to the Apple 
Ipod had an impact on their emotional response to this sketch. Overall, the results from 
the first session uncovered the need to see the experiment through to conclusion to be 
able to fully understand the impact that this experiment has on the design development of 
a product.  
 
 50
3. SESSION 2 EXPERIMENT 
3.1 Preparation 
 
 Based on the conclusions of Session 1, many aspects of the experiment were 
changed to ideally positively effect the participant?s ability to provide understandable 
GSR results. As well, the seven sketches were furthered developed into computer 
generated models in which their pictures would be integrated into the PowerPoint 
Presentation and picture survey. The results from this session would be another phase in 
the design development of the MP4 player product. 
 
3.2 Participant Involvement 
 The same participants from session 1 participated in session 2 to provide 
continuity of results. The practice of using the same participants over the course of the 
product development is not unusual. Because these participants provided results for the 
development of the five concepts in session 2, it was important to continue to seek their 
feedback into the following phase of the product evaluation. 
 
3.3 Experiment Design 
 Session 2 presented the next phase in the design development process. Based on 
the outcome from Session 1, the seven sketches were revised into five computer 
generated models. Pictures of the models were incorporated into a PowerPoint 
 51
Presentation for the purpose of monitoring the time in which the participant views the 
material. Figure3.1 shows each of the concepts. 
 
Model A 
 
 
 
Model B 
  
 
Model C 
 
 
 
Model D 
 
  
Model E 
 
 
Figure 3.1 - Session 2 Concepts identified by their model letter and the order in 
which they are presented in the PowerPoint presentation. 
 52
 This presentation prepared the participant with a scenario to better help he or she 
visualize the product. The participants were instructed that they would be going to Best 
Buy to purchase an MP4 player. All the players had the same features and were the same 
price. For the purpose of capturing results through the GSR device, the participants were 
to base their decisions on the designs of the products. The beginning of the presentation 
did not present any questions for the participant to answer. This was different from 
Session 1. Instead they were shown the pictures of each product first. Then after viewing 
all of the pictures, they were presented with the questions of deciding which product they 
preferred the most and would like to purchase. This was followed by five slides that 
showed one picture of each product and asked this question at the top of the page. Asking 
the question near the end of the session after the participants had seen all of the products 
helped to establish a better opportunity for he or she to have a more clear response. 
Having seen each of the products earlier in the session, the participant has the opportunity 
to form a response in advance of answering the question which MP4 player he or she 
prefers the most. Because of how the GSR device works, the participant might have a 
reaction to a product that he or she did not know they preferred. The use of the picture 
survey helps to establish a better understanding of the response that the GSR chart 
displays. Refer to Figures 3.5 -3.7 for a more detailed illustration of participant GSR 
charts. 
 53
 
Figure 3.2 - Session 2 PowerPoint Presentation 
 54
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.3 ? Session 2 Picture Survey Example
 55
3.4 Anticipated Outcomes 
1. It is anticipated that any speculations made from Session 1 will enhance 
Session 2 and will increase the opportunity for a more successful outcome. 
2. It is anticipated that the participant will be more relaxed going into Session 2 
since understanding the procedure. 
3. It will be unknown the activities or conditions that the participant encountered 
or participated in prior to arriving at the session. It will also be unknown the 
participants? stress level, emotional state or physical ailments at the time of 
participation. These conditions can all have effects on the participant?s ability 
to respond to the stimulus.  
4. It is projected that the design of the session in which the five computer 
generated models are presented is designed in the best way to arrive at a 
response from the participant.  
5. It is anticipated that the timings prepared for the presentation of the materials 
is in the best interest of the participant and for the experiment.  
6. Each participant?s GSR chart of responses is expected to be understandable 
enough to arrive at a result. 
7. The anticipated outcome from the participant?s picture survey is expected to 
correspond and support the responses from the GSR chart. 
8. It is projected that the three models most preferred will be revised into three 
enhanced computer models and subsequently, three urethane foam prototypes.  
 
 
 56
3.5 Deliverables 
1. A PowerPoint Presentation including the five computer generated models. 
2. Five computer generated models with additional pictures of the models? 
details. 
3. 20 GSR charts, 1 from each participant 
4. 20 picture surveys with results marked from each participant.  
 
3.6 Actual Findings 
 The GSR charts and picture surveys provided interesting results. The first result 
was that most participants, who showed very little reaction to the stimuli in Session 1 
were more responsive in Session 2. This could be because they were more prepared for 
the procedure, more excited about the content or because of some unknown factors that 
could have contributed to their elevated emotionally reactive state. The changes that were 
made in the layout and order of questions might also have contributed to the participant?s 
ability to respond at the given time.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 57
Th
e is
 s
e
s
s
i
o
n
 beg
a
n
 w
ith
 an in
tr
o
d
u
c
tion
 an
d
 a s
cenar
io
 in
ten
d
ed
 to
h
e
lp th
e p
a
r
ticipan
t v
i
s
u
alize an
d
 th
in
k
 ab
o
u
t th
e co
ncep
ts
 as
 act
u
a
l
prod
uc
t
s
 t
h
e
y
 ha
ve
 a
n
 opport
u
ni
t
y
 t
o
 pu
rc
ha
s
e
.
T
hi
s
 proc
e
s
s
 w
a
s
in
te
n
d
ed
 to
 in
v
o
k
e
 an
 emo
t
i
o
n
a
l r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
 to
 each
 o
f
 th
e 5
 co
n
c
e
p
ts
.
Each
 of
 th
e 5
 co
n
c
ep
ts
 w
e
r
e
 pr
es
en
ted
 o
v
e
r
 2
 s
lid
es
.
T
h
e
f
i
r
s
t s
l
id
e in
tr
o
d
u
c
ed
 th
e p
r
o
d
uct f
o
llo
w
e
d b
y
 a s
lid
e
s
h
o
w
i
n
g
 th
e p
r
o
d
uct d
e
tails
.
I
n
 th
e f
i
nal s
ectio
n
 of
 th
e s
e
s
s
i
o
n
,
 th
e p
a
r
ticipan
ts
 w
e
r
e
 ins
t
r
u
cted
 to
 
ch
o
o
s
e
 a p
r
od
u
c
t f
r
o
m the 5
 th
at th
ey
h
a
d
 s
een.
T
h
e
n
,
 eac
h
 co
n
cep
t is
 s
h
o
w
n
 f
o
r
 
4
 s
eco
n
d
s
 as
k
i
n
g
 ?I
s
 th
is
 th
e M
P
4
 p
l
ay
er
 y
o
u
 w
o
u
l
d
 lik
e to
ow
n?
?
T
hi
s
 w
a
s
 i
n
t
e
nde
d
 t
o
 e
v
oke
 a
 ye
s or no a
n
s
w
e
r
.
In
tr
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
?
Y
ou
w
ill
 be
s
hown ne
w
s
li
des
 of
 M
P
4
pl
a
y
er
s
.
?
T
he
r
e
will
 be 3 d
if
fe
r
e
nt
 p
r
odu
c
t e
x
am
p
les
.
?
Y
o
u
 a
r
e
 to
 fo
ll
o
w
 th
e
 d
ir
e
c
ti
o
n
s
 t
h
a
t fo
ll
o
w
th
e
s
li
d
e
s
.
S
c
ena
r
i
o
?
Y
ou ha
v
e
 na
rr
o
w
ed d
o
w
n
y
o
u
r
pr
ef
er
e
n
c
e
 o
f
M
P
4
p
lay
er
s
 t
o
 t
h
ree.
?
E
a
c
h o
f
th
e
fo
ll
o
w
ing
M
P
4 p
la
y
e
rs
y
ou a
re
go
ing t
o
lo
o
k
 a
t,
hav
e
th
e
s
a
m
e
fe
at
u
re
s
an
d
 c
o
s
t
th
e
s
a
m
e
.
?
Y
ou nee
d
 t
o
de
c
id
e
w
h
ic
h
one
y
ou p
re
fe
r
th
e
m
o
s
t.
AB
C
D
E
 
Figure 3.4 ? GSR Chart Dissection and Explanation 
 58
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Product picture questionnaire: Products A-E A B C D E 
Individual ranking of preference on a 1-10 scale, 
10= very much, 1= very little 4 7 9 6 3 
Figure 3.5 - Session 2 GSR Chart & Specific Picture Survey Results  
 
          This GSR chart shows the vertical bars that separate the time periods in which 
information was being shown to the participants in the PowerPoint Presentation. The 
letters correspond to the model shown at that time. This chart and survey results shows 
clear reactions during the time that the participant viewed Model B and C. In the latter 
portion when being asked the question, the participant had the greatest reaction to 
Model C. When comparing the results from the chart with the survey, the participant 
clearly preferred Model C.  
 59
 
 
Product picture questionnaire: Products A-E A B C D E 
Individual ranking of preference on a 1-10 scale, 
10= very much, 1= very little 6 6 8 10 8 
Figure 3.6 - Session 2 GSR Chart & Specific Picture Survey Results 
 
           This is another interesting outcome from Session 2. This participant, according 
to the picture survey results, highly favored Products C, D and E. When comparing 
these results with the GSR chart, it is easy to see that the participant had an emotional 
response to each of these products when viewing them the first time. When analyzing 
which product she preferred the most, it then becomes difficult because it appears that 
she equally preferred Product C and D. Although, one might interpret the dip in 
Product C and the rise in Product D, as changing his or her mind. This would correlate 
with the picture survey results. However, it is again impossible to discern what kind of 
emotion or thoughts the participant might have been having at these times.  
 
 60
  
 
 
Product picture questionnaire: Products A-E A B C D E 
Individual ranking of preference on a 1-10 
scale, 10= very much, 1= very little 1 6 8 7 10 
Figure 3.7 - Session 2 GSR Chart & Specific Picture Survey Results  
 
           In this participant?s chart, the participant was able to have a wide range of 
emotional reactions. Outside or unknown factors may have contributed to this 
participant?s ability to respond with a variety of degrees. The picture survey results 
indicate that the participant preferred different products more than the ones the chart 
reflects as more preferred. It would seem that the participant was stimulated the most by 
the features of product B. However, the participant peaks when seeing Product C. 
Again, when asked which product the participant preferred the most, it might appear that 
A or B is most preferred. Because of these difficult anomalies, it is difficult to arrive at 
an outcome based solely on the chart alone. This is why the picture survey is so 
important. 
 61
 
 Each GSR chart was analyzed for its most preferred product based on the 
emotional responses the participant had. The order of the preferred products was then 
compared to the analyzed picture survey results. The results are seen in Figure 3.8 
Averaged data was again used to determine a numerical winner in a short time period 
while comparing the chart level reactions. Followed by figures 3.9 ? 3.13 are the 
analyzed breakdowns of men and female votes for these 5 concepts.  
 
Preference Averages : 5.1 6.05 6.4 7.6 6.2
Product Order of 
Preference D C E B A 
Product Order of 
Preference based on Chart 
Level Reactions C B D A E 
 
 
Figure 3.8- Session 2 Analyzed Results:  Row 1 is the averages in Model order (A-E) 
presented to the participant. Row 2 shows the order based on the averages that the 
products are preferred. Row 3 shows the order of preference based on chart analysis.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 62
 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Female
Figure 3.9 - Concept D
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fe ma le
Figure 3.10 - Concept C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Female
Figure 3.11 - Concept E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fe ma le
Figure 3.12 - Concept B
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Female
Figure 3.13 - Concept A
 
 
 
 
 
These bar graphs are numbers 
from the five models in order of 
the averages they received, 
highest to lowest. These numbers 
came from the scores both male 
and female student participants 
gave during the picture survey. 
 
 63
 
 The picture survey provided a numerical number to average out for a result. The 
?Preference Averages? is the ?Product Order of Preference?. Products D, C and E were 
the top three most preferred products based on the picture survey. Determined from the 
emotional reactions the participant?s GSR charts displayed, Products C, B and D were 
most preferred. Product E appeared to have very few emotional reactions therefore 
making it appear that it was not as preferred. However, a problem in the setup of the 
experiment left no room for any other reactions to occur after viewing product E, making 
it impossible to see if the participant?s reactions would have increased. This problem 
could have affected the ability to read from the GSR charts a preference for this product. 
Figure 3.14 represents the top three concepts in both orders according to the initial 
results.  
Session 2 
Picture 
Survey 
Results in 
Order 
 
 
 
Session 2 
GSR Chart 
Results in 
Order 
 
 
 
Figure 3.14 - Session 2 Results in Visual Form 
  
 64
These three products would be further revised as computer generated models and pre-
prototypes for Session 3. Based on the design features of these products, it was in the best 
interest of the participants to incorporate the features of Products B and E into one of the 
three products for Session 3. Products C and D would continue to be revised in Session 3.  
 
3.7 Discussion  
 As with Session 1, there were many things learned from the changes incorporated 
into the experiment and from the participant?s behaviors as well. Conclusions drawn from 
Session 1 were integrated into the Session 2 PowerPoint in hopes of creating more 
understandable data. It seemed that this presentation kept the participant stimulated and 
interested in the experiment. Asking questions at the end of the session allowed the 
participant to really experience the product, think about the product, and then make a 
decision. In most instances, the participant showed a clear response during this last 
section of the session. In this last section, it was clear to understand if the participant was 
responding to the question of ?Is this the MP4 player you?d like to own?? In Session 3, a 
similar approach with the material and questions will be applied to the PowerPoint 
Presentation. It is possible that product color could have affected the outcome of the 
results. In Session 3, color choices will be integrated to understand if this has an affect on 
the results. Session 2 was successful because emotional reactions were clearer than in 
Session 1. It is hopeful to see if the format of Session 2 can be revised to accommodate 
the materials included in Session 3 and if Session 3 will be as successful. Again, in 
conclusion, it is important to continue seeking answers to the development of this process 
as it is the end result of the evaluation of the product.  
 65
4. SESSION 3 EXPERIMENT 
4.1 Preparation 
  To prepare for Session 3, results of Session 2 were analyzed and revised using the 
computer modeling program, Rhino 3D. Pictures of the three models were made for the 
slide show presentation and the file was saved so that it could be used by the computer 
aided 3 Axis Router to cut the models out of urethane foam. This technique can create 
quick 3-D models that help with better understanding the user relationship with the 
product.  
 
4.2 Participant Involvement 
 The same 20 participants continued to provide their feedback through Session 3. 
Keeping the same participants throughout the study is important for continuity and 
because the results may vary because of different views, beliefs and backgrounds if 
different users were involved.  
 
4.3 Experiment Design 
 Two additional features were added to Session 3 in order to try and better 
understand the user?s reactions as well as test the possibilities of using a different 
presentation of material to see if that affected the responses. First, the user interaction 
 66
with the pre-prototypes had to be added into the setup of the slide show. This would also 
have to include the ability for the GSR device to capture the response during the 
interaction. Color was thought to have affected the results in Session 2. Color choices 
would be added to see if the participant is drawn to a specific color and to eliminate the 
possibility that color is a factor in this phase of design evaluation. Figure 4.1 shows the 
concept models as they will be first presented to the participants in the PowerPoint 
presentation shown in Figure 4.2.  
 
Product A Product B Product C 
 
 
 
Figure 4.1 - Session 3 Models used in PowerPoint Presentation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 67
 
 
 
Figure 4.2 - Session 3 PowerPoint Presentation 
 68
 
 Midway through the presentation after all the models have been presented through 
the images, the participants were given the opportunity to interact with the pre-
prototypes. Figure 4.3 shows the pre-prototypes the participants were given 30 seconds 
each to interact with. During the time in which the participant is interacting with the 
model, their reactions are still being recorded using the GSR device.  
 
Product A Product B Product C 
 
  
 
Figure 4.3 - Session 3 Pre-Prototypes made of urethane foam 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 69
 At the end of the presentation, each model is presented with 5 color options. The 
participants were asked to answer the question of which color choice they prefer and 
when that color choice appears, to answer ?Yes?. Options for model color are represented 
in Figure 4.4. 
 
 
Figure 4.4 - Session 3 Model Color Options Presented in PowerPoint presentation 
 
 Each session is followed by a picture survey. The picture survey for Session 3 
asked participants, in addition to assigning a preference value to each of the products, but 
also to select the color they most preferred.  
 70
 
Figure 4.5 - Session 3 Picture Survey Example
 71
4.4 Anticipated Outcomes 
1. It is anticipated that Session 3 will be more successful than previous sessions 
in capturing and understanding user reactions due to the interaction with the 
pre-prototypes and the addition of color choices. 
2. It is anticipated that the participants will have greater reactions to the three 
urethane foam prototypes than the pictures because the process involves 
additional senses. During the time periods in which the participant is handling 
the prototype, it will be difficult to discern their response due to do noise that 
can contribute to the participant?s reaction levels increasing. 
3. In viewing the three urethane foam models it will be impossible to allow 
enough time for the participant to come back to a neutral state before viewing 
the next pre-prototype because every individual will have a different amount 
of time to resume a neutral state.  
4. The addition of color choices is expected to produce similar results as the last 
question portion of pictures from Session 2 because the presentation of the 
question is identical. 
5. In conclusion of Session 3, it is anticipated that the results will yield one 
product that both the GSR chart and the picture survey convey is the strongest 
among the three choices.  
 
4.5 Deliverables 
1. A PowerPoint Presentation including the three computer generated models. 
2. 3 Urethane Foam Models produced using a 3 Axis Router 
 72
3. Three computer generated models with additional pictures of the model?s 
details. 
4. 20 GSR charts, 1 from each participant 
5. 20 picture surveys with results marked from each participant 
 
4.6 Actual Findings  
 While the beginning of the Session 3 presentation was very similar to Session 2, 
the results began to become difficult to understand once the participants interacted with 
the pre-prototypes. All of the participants had some kind of increase in response when 
they saw and or touched the first pre-prototype. This level of response mostly remained 
during the time they were interacting with the pre-prototypes. Their response levels 
decreased when the presentation continued and the question that they choose a color 
began. The color portion of the presentation was expected to yield a result that would 
better assist the design development process. Ideally, if the participants are able to 
responds to pictures and answer a question, then they should be able to respond to a color 
and answer a question of ?yes, this is the color I prefer?. Unfortunately, this period of 
choosing a color did not produce clear enough results to completely understand which 
color was most preferred through the GSR charts. The picture survey, however, had clear 
results from which to draw conclusions. Figures 4.7-4.9 are examples of GSR charts from 
Session 3. 
 
 
 
 73
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
ti
o
n
?
Y
ou
will
 be
s
h
o
w
n ne
w
s
li
d
e
s
 of
 M
P
4
pl
ay
er
s
.
?
T
he
r
e
will
 be 
3 d
if
fe
r
e
n
t p
r
od
u
c
t e
x
am
p
les
.
?
Y
o
u
 a
r
e
 to
 fo
ll
o
w
 th
e
 d
ir
e
c
ti
o
n
s
 t
h
a
t fo
ll
o
w
th
e
s
li
d
e
s
.
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
?
Y
ou ha
v
e
 na
rr
o
w
ed
 d
o
w
n
y
o
u
r
pr
ef
e
re
n
c
e
 o
f
M
P
4
pl
a
y
er
s
 t
o t
h
ree.
?
E
a
c
h o
f
th
e
fol
lo
w
ing
M
P
4 p
la
y
e
rs
y
ou
 a
re
goi
n
g
 t
o
lo
o
k
 a
t,
hav
e
th
e
s
a
m
e
fe
at
u
re
s
an
d
 c
o
s
t
th
e
s
a
m
e.
?
Y
ou ne
e
d
 t
o
de
c
id
e
w
h
ic
h
one
y
ou p
re
fe
r
th
e
m
o
s
t.
N
o
w
,
 y
o
u
w
i
l
l
hav
e 
t
h
e
opport
u
n
it
y
t
o
ex
p
e
ri
e
n
c
e
e
a
c
h
of
 t
h
e
p
roduc
t
s
?
C
on
s
ide
r t
h
e
fo
ll
o
w
in
g
w
h
il
e e
v
a
luat
in
g
 t
he p
rodu
c
t:
?
S
iz
e
: I
s
it
 to
o
b
ig
?
  I
s
it
 to
o
s
m
a
ll?
?
B
ut
to
n
s
:  
D
o
 th
e
y
s
e
e
m
 e
a
s
y
to
 n
a
v
ig
a
te
?
?
S
ty
le
:
D
o
y
ou
lik
e
it
?
W
hat
 do
y
o
u
lik
e ab
o
u
t
it
?
P
leas
e
fo
ll
o
w
 t
he
in
s
t
ruc
ti
ons
o
n
th
e
pa
g
e
th
a
t
w
il
l 
in
s
tr
u
c
t
h
o
w
y
ou
wi
ll
 i
n
te
ra
c
t
wi
th
th
e
p
ro
du
c
t
T
h
i
s
 is
 the
 in
troduc
t
i
on 
s
e
c
t
io
n 
of the
 c
h
a
r
t
th
at inclu
d
e
s
 in
s
t
r
u
ctio
n
s
 an
d
 a 
s
cen
ar
io
f
o
r
 th
e par
tici
p
an
ts
 to
 
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
.
A
B
C
AB
C
A
B
C
T
h
i
s
 s
e
c
t
ion 
i
s
 t
h
e
 fi
rs
t
 
int
r
oduc
t
i
on
 t
o
 t
h
e
 
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
?
s
 
produc
t
s
.
T
w
o i
m
ages
 of 
each product
 
ar
e 
s
how
n for 
7 s
econds
 
t
h
en 5
s
e
c
o
nds
.
T
he
 ve
rti
c
a
l
 
l
i
n
e
s
 i
ndic
a
t
e
 the
 t
i
m
e
 
i
n
 w
h
i
c
h th
e
 
produc
t
im
a
g
e
s
 we
re
 s
h
o
w
n 
a
nd 
the
 
re
s
pons
e
 t
h
a
t
 oc
c
u
rre
d
 
during
 t
h
e
s
e
ti
m
e
s
.
  
Be
low a
r
e
 th
e
 
i
m
a
g
e
s
 of 
t
h
e
 produc
t
s
 
t
h
a
t
 we
re
 us
e
d
 in th
e
P
o
we
rPoin
t
 P
r
e
s
e
n
ta
t
i
on.
Thi
s
 s
ect
ion w
a
s
 new
 
to 
t
h
e form
at 
becau
s
e
 i
t
 i
n
cl
uded t
h
e 
opport
unit
y
 
to i
n
teract
w
i
t
h
 t
h
e
 
pre
-
prot
ot
ype
s
 m
a
de
 
of ure
t
ha
ne
 foa
m
 
a
nd fi
nis
h
e
d
 t
o
 a
 
s
i
mi
la
r 
qua
l
i
t
y
.
E
a
c
h
 pa
rti
c
ip
a
n
t wa
s
 i
n
s
t
ruc
t
e
d
 
whe
n
 to
 
i
n
te
ra
c
t
 
wi
th t
h
e
 
produc
t
 a
nd 
whe
n
 to
 
put
it
 
dow
n
.
T
h
e
 i
n
t
e
ra
c
t
i
on 
ti
me
 
wa
s
 for 20
 s
e
c
onds
 
foll
owe
d
 b
y
 a
 
5 s
e
c
o
n
d
 bl
a
n
k
sl
i
d
e
.
Th
e 
f
i
n
a
l s
ection
 as
k
e
d
 
th
e p
a
r
t
icip
an
t
a
bout
 
t
h
e
i
r c
o
l
o
r pre
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
. 
 E
a
c
h
produc
t
 
wa
s
 
s
hown in 5 dif
f
e
r
e
n
t
c
o
l
o
rs fo
r 5 s
e
c
o
nds.
AB
C
bla
c
k
  
  
  
 gol
d
l
t. bl
ue
 
dk. bl
ue
  
  
w
h
it
e
 
Figure 4.6 ? GSR Chart Dissection & Explanation 
 74
Figure 4.7 ? Session 3 GSR Chart 
 
           The design of Session 4 included three opportunities to evaluate the design of each 
of the three products. The opportunity presented each of the three products individually 
with details about the product. The second opportunity was the interaction period in 
which the participant could touch and feel the urethane foam pre-prototype. And the third 
opportunity consisted of five pictures of the product showing that product in five 
different color options. In the first set, this individual was actively responsive to each of 
the slides shown with the different products. When seeing the product for the first time, 
the participant responded more than after seeing the second picture of the same product. 
During the interaction period, this participant is as equally stimulated as when they began 
the session. The third section asked the participants to respond yes to the color they 
preferred on each of the three models. This participant remained active into this last 
section. Factors contributing to these results could be explained as being stimulated by 
the material or from outside unknowns. This participant?s results were difficult to 
understand because of so many equal reactions. It was difficult to understand which 
reactions truly corresponded to preference. 
 
 
 75
 
Figure 4.8 ? Session 3 GSR Chart 
 
           This participant has a wide range of emotional response. The first set of pictures of 
the product does not provide enough stimuli for the participant to respond with a reaction. 
However, during the interaction period, the participant has a strong reaction to seeing the 
pre-prototype and touching it. It would appear that the participant preferred product A 
over the other two products because of the decline in reactions. During the color portion 
of the survey, the participant responds highly to Product A and B both in the color black. 
Although there are clear reactions to specific portions of the presentation, it is still 
difficult to understand what kind of stimulus is needed for a person who has a higher 
range of emotional response.  
 76
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.9 ? Session 3 GSR Chart 
 
           This chart reflects a participant who shows little to no response to stimuli in 
multiple contexts. The participant shows a little response in the beginning of the 
presentation but it is not clear if the participant is truly responding to Product A or simply 
adjusting his or hers anxiety levels to his or her normal state. During the second section, 
the participant is reactive to touching and feeling the pre-prototype but shows very little 
range in response. During the color portion of the survey, the participant does not provide 
any indicator that the color option pictures are enough stimuli for a response. Another 
contributing factor could be boredom or an inability to become emotionally engaged to a 
subject matter such as this.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 77
 Each of the charts provides enough results to conclude that product A is the most 
preferred product among the choices. The only results that the color options provided 
came from the picture survey and not a combination of both the picture survey and the 
GSR chart. The GSR chart data was insufficient in providing clear responses to the color 
preferences. The preferences of the participants are outlined in Figures 4.10. In Figure 
4.11 shows the actual numbers of votes per model per color received from the picture 
surveys.  
 
Preference Averages : 7.05 6.5 5.4
Product Order of Preference AB C
Product Order of Preference based on  
Chart Level Reactions AB C
 
Figure 4.10 - Session 3 Results from Averages & GSR Charts 
 
A B C 
black 
gold 
light blue met
a
llic 
blue black metallic 
silver white 
black 
gold 
light blue met
a
llic 
blue black metallic 
silver white 
black 
gold 
light blue met
a
llic 
blue black metallic 
silver white 
4 0 7 4 4 4 1 4 5 5 2 5 4 1 7 
 
Figure 4.11 - Color Preference Results from Picture Surveys 
 
Figures 4.12 ? 4.14 are the analyzed breakdowns from men and female who participated 
in the experiment. This data is helpful in understanding where the numerical data and 
averages come from. 
 78
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Female
Figure 4.12 - Concept A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Female
Figure 4.13 - Concept B
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Female
Figure 4.14 - Concept C
 
  
These bar graphs are numbers 
from the three models and 
urethane foam pre-prototypes in 
order of the averages they 
received, highest to lowest. These 
numbers came from the scores 
both male and female student 
participants gave during the 
picture survey. 
 79
 Many factors could have contributed to the lack of findings such as placement in 
the presentation. After achieving such a high level of response from interaction with the 
pre-prototypes, the pictures no longer provided enough stimuli to measure a positive 
response from. As well, the length of time could have contributed to the inability to 
responds. Based on both the GSR charts for preference to product and the picture surveys 
for color preferences, the results as represented in Figure 4.15 are the order in which the 
ideas will be developed into 1 final concept prototype. Male and female participant votes 
were separated and analyzed for confirmation and to check for differences in preference. 
The charts confirm that Product A was equally preferred by both sexes while Product C 
had extreme differences in the females vote vs. males votes. Again, looking at the whole 
procedure instead of the individual differences in gender preferences is what this study is 
about. Further investigation into gender differences is recommended for future studies. 
 
Product A Product B Product C 
  
 
 
Figure 4.15 - Session 3 Model Results in order of Preference and Color 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 80
4.7 Discussion 
 Session 3 was a critical experiment phase for both this study and in the 
development of the product. Based on the conclusions of this phase, Product A will be 
developed as the final product and tested in Session 4. It can also be concluded that a 
silver white color was preferred more than any other color even though for Product A, the 
color light blue metallic was most preferred. In design, sometimes compromises must be 
made in order to satisfy the majority of the consumers. In this case, a silver white color 
will be used as the color for the final product. Drawing on the conclusions of the 
experiment design, the incorporation of the interaction with the product will still be 
included while a smaller number of questions will be asked afterwards. In addition to 
testing the responses to the final product, a current on the market comparison product will 
be added to draw a real result from the responses the participants have in Session 4. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 81
5. SESSION 4 EXPERIMENT 
5.1 Preparation 
 Using the results from Session 3, the final product was further revised into a 
concept prototype. A popular MP3 player with video (MP4) playing capabilities was 
identified to use as a comparison product. This comparison product featured similarities 
to the appearance and function of Product B from Session 3 which was also highly 
preferred by the users. It was modeled using the same computer modeling program and 
produced using the same process as the final concept prototype to keep quality features 
consistent. The two concept prototypes are presented in Session 4 in a similar format to 
Session 3 where the participant interacts with the products.  
 
5.2 Participant Involvement  
 Session 4 is the last session that the participants are asked to schedule and attend. 
The final feedback helps to conclude the experiment with either validation or 
contradiction of the design development process for the MP4 player created through the 
feedback delivered over the course of three sessions. 
 
 
 
 
 82
5.3 Experiment Design 
 The PowerPoint Presentation set up included an almost identical format to 
Session 3. Eliminated from the presentation were color options. The color options yielded 
little to no consistent results by being included in the presentation. This presentation
concludes with the final concept prototype with a current market product with similar 
features. This use of a ?new product? (NP) and a ?comparison product? (CP) both shown 
in Figure 5.1 intends to bring about a conclusion that this experiment can be used with 
comparison products once the product being developed has been finished.  
 
New Product Comparison Product 
  
 
Figure 5.1 - Session 4 Final Prototype (New Product) and Comparison Product 
 
 
 Pictures of the products in scenarios of use were included in the PowerPoint 
shown in Figure 5.2. These pictures were taken to assist the participant in visualizing 
using the product. The presentation also included a period to see, touch and visualize 
using the product. Additional time was added to the presentation to allow the participant 
more opportunity to resume a neutral state before being exposed to more stimuli. Notice 
 83
the blank white slides included in the presentation. These blank slides were included to 
provide a mind clearing time for the participant to relax.  
 
 
Figure 5.2 - Session 4 PowerPoint Presentation 
 
 
 
 The final survey as shown in Figure 5.3 followed the same format as all the 
previous surveys but included a box for the participants to check if this was the product 
they most preferred. Although the results should be reflected in the numerical value they 
assign to the two products, the action of choosing the product is something that is 
important for the participant to do. This final survey is the last step in conducting the 
experiment.  
 84
 
 
Figure 5.3 ? Session 4 Picture Survey Example 
 85
5.4 Anticipated Outcomes 
1. In this final session, it is anticipated that the participant?s anxiety will no 
longer be about starting the experiment but finishing the experiment. 
2. The comparison product chosen is intended to provide as close to an opposite 
of the new product developed through the experiment. This is to test to see 
how well the designer understood the results of the experiment.  
3. It is anticipated that the participants will be closely split between the two 
products since the comparison product has similar features to two of the 
previously evaluated products in Session 3.  
4. The two products are produced using similar processes to keep quality 
consistent. It would be assumed that the current market comparison product 
would be most preferred if it were purchased from a local retailer and was a 
working prototype in comparison to the concept appearance model form of the 
NP.  
5. It is projected that the participants? responses will closely correspond to the 
results they indicate on the picture surveys.  
6. By switching the product first seen after 10 participants, it is anticipated that 
the product seen first will be most preferred.  
7. In conclusion of the experiment, it is anticipated that this final session will 
include observed improvements from previous sessions and that Session 4 will 
be the best example of how to conduct future experiments. 
 
 
 86
 
5.5 Deliverables 
1. A PowerPoint Presentation including the new product and the comparison 
product 
2. Two products representing the new product and the comparison product 
produced in ABS plastic using a Fuse Deposition 3-D Modeler 
3. Detailed pictures of the two products and shots of them in ?use? 
4. 20 GSR charts, 1 from each participant 
5. 20 picture surveys with results marked from each participant 
 
5.6 Actual Findings  
 Session 4 is a conclusion to the previous sessions representing the development of 
an MP4 video playing device. Created for the purpose of comparison, the CP, provides a 
product of similar features to the NP in order to produce some kind of measurable results. 
The participants approached this session anxious to be finished with the experiment 
rather than excited to contribute their feedback. This was due to a time constraint that 
affected most university students. Figure 5.5 shows the anatomy of the Session 4 GSR 
chart.  
 
 
 
 
 
 87
N
o
w
,
 y
o
u
w
i
ll
h
av
e t
h
e
o
ppor
tu
ni
t
y
t
o
ex
pe
ri
e
n
c
e
ea
c
h
of
 t
h
e
p
rod
u
c
t
s
?
C
o
ns
id
e
r 
th
e
fol
lo
wi
ng
w
h
il
e
 e
v
al
ua
t
in
g
 t
he
 p
ro
d
u
c
t:
?
S
iz
e:
 I
s
it to
o
b
ig
?
  I
s
it to
o
sm
a
ll?
?
B
ut
tons
:  D
o t
h
ey
se
e
m
 e
a
sy
to
 n
a
vi
ga
te
?
?
S
ty
le
:
D
o
you
lik
e
it?
W
ha
t do
yo
u
lik
e
 ab
o
ut
it?
P
lea
se
fo
ll
o
w
 t
h
e
ins
t
ru
ct
ions
o
n
th
e
p
a
g
e
th
a
t
w
il
l i
n
s
tr
u
ct
ho
w
y
ou
w
il
l i
nt
e
ra
ct
w
it
h
th
e
p
rodu
c
t
In
tr
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
?
Y
ou
w
il
l be
s
how
n 
ne
w
s
li
des
 of
 M
P
4
pl
a
y
er
s
.
?
T
he
r
e
w
il
l 
be 3 d
if
fe
r
ent
 p
r
odu
c
t 
e
x
am
p
les
.
?
Y
ou a
r
e t
o
 f
o
ll
o
w
 t
he 
d
ir
e
c
ti
o
n
s
 t
hat
 f
o
ll
o
w
th
e
s
lid
e
s
.
S
c
ena
r
i
o
?
Y
o
u ha
v
e na
rr
o
w
e
d d
o
w
n
y
ou
r
pr
ef
er
e
n
c
e
 o
f
M
P
4
p
la
y
e
rs
 to
 th
re
e
.
?
E
a
c
h
 o
f
th
e
fol
lo
wi
ng
MP
4 p
la
y
e
rs
y
o
u a
re
go
in
g t
o
lo
ok
 a
t,
h
a
v
e
th
e
s
a
m
e
fe
a
tu
res
an
d c
o
s
t
th
e
s
a
m
e.
?
Y
o
u ne
e
d
 t
o
de
c
id
e
w
h
ic
h
on
e
y
o
u p
ref
er
th
e
m
o
st
.
Th
is
 
is
 th
e in
tr
od
uct
i
on
 s
ect
ion
 o
f
 
the 
char
t
that 
inclu
d
e
s
 in
s
t
r
u
ction
s
 an
d
 a s
cen
ar
io
f
o
r the par
ticip
ant
s
 
to
 
co
ns
ide
r
.
I
m
ag
es
 o
f
 a C
o
mpar
is
on
 P
r
od
uct (
C
P
)
 w
e
r
e
s
h
ow
n
 in
 th
is
 s
ectio
n.
 
S
e
ver
a
l i
m
ag
es
 w
i
th
f
eatur
e d
e
s
c
r
i
ption
s
 w
e
r
e
 mad
e
 ov
er
 4
 s
lid
es
f
o
r
 a total 
of
 2
5
 
s
econ
d
s
.
 
A
 1
0
 
s
econ
d
 
blan
k
s
lid
e s
e
rv
ed 
as
 a b
r
eak 
betw
een
 th
e p
r
o
d
u
c
ts
.
NP
CP
NP
CP
NP
C
P
Th
e or
d
e
r 
in 
w
h
ich
 th
e N
e
w
Prod
uc
t
 (NP) a
n
d t
h
e
 C
P
ap
pear
ed
 chan
ged
 h
a
lf
 w
a
y
th
r
o
u
g
h
 th
e ex
per
i
ment 
to
s
ee 
if
 any
 tr
en
ds
 
app
ear
ed
w
ith
 th
e p
r
od
uct 
s
h
o
w
n
fi
rst
.
I
n
st
ruc
t
i
o
ns we
re
giv
e
n to the par
tici
-
p
a
nt
s pri
o
r to
inter
actin
g
 w
ith
 th
e
f
i
na
l
 pro
t
ot
yp
e
s
.
Th
ey
 w
e
r
e
remin
d
ed
 to
 th
ink
abo
u
t the featur
es
and
 th
e ap
pear
ence.
A
 10
 
s
eco
nd
b
l
a
nk sl
i
d
e
 wa
s
ins
e
rted b
e
tw
een
t
h
e
 p
r
od
uc
t
i
n
teract
ions
.
T
h
e
 fi
na
l se
c
t
i
ons re
-p
re
se
nt
s t
h
e
 fi
na
l
 pr
odu
c
t
an
d
 as
k
s
 th
e p
a
rticipan
t to d
ecid
e
 on
 w
h
ich
p
r
od
uct they
 
p
r
efer
r
e
d the mo
s
t
.
 
Figure 5.4 ? Session 4 GSR Chart Dissection & Explanation 
 88
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.5 ? Session 4 GSR Chart  
           
          This example shows the consistent reactions throughout the session. Even more 
convincing is how the picture survey results match the parts of the chart that show the 
strongest emotional response. This participant felt more strongly for the NP than the CP. 
In the picture survey the participant assigns a 9 to the NP and a 6 to the CP. In the chart, 
the NP has the strongest responses in the first section, second section and the strongest 
response in the section where the participant is asked to decide which product they prefer 
the most. This participants prefers the NP even though he or she was shown the CP first.  
 89
 
 
Figure 5.6 ? Session 4 GSR Chart  
 
          This example of a wide range of emotional responses is a good example of seeing 
the specific time and material that provided the stimulus. In this example, the NP is 
clearly a stimulus the participant is responding to in two of the three instances of viewing 
the product. In this example the participant is viewing the NP first before viewing the CP. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 90
 
 
Figure 5.7 ? Session 4 GSR Chart   
 
          While this chart shows a wide range of emotional response, it also shows a lack of 
response during periods where stimuli is being provided. The participant responds in the 
interaction period but not in the viewing or deciding periods. This participant states in the 
picture survey that he or she prefers the CP. This could possible be because the CP was 
shown first. It is unclear if this participant would have preferred the NP if it had been 
presented first.  
 
 
 91
 In ten of the twenty participants? charts, the product they prefer the most is 
understandable. In the other ten GSR charts only speculations can be made as to which 
product the participant preferred. This is due to either a lack of response or equally strong 
responses for both products. According to the picture surveys and the numerical data 
presented in figure 5.8, the NP was preferred more than the CP by a very narrow margin. 
 
Preference Averages 
7.45 7.3 
NP (New Product) 
Preference 
11 out of 20 
participants prefer the 
NP 
9 out of 20 participants 
prefer the CP 
 
Figure 5.8 - Session 4 Numerical Results 
 
 
 In figures 5.9 ? 5.10, the analyzed breakdown of male and female participant 
votes demonstrates the differences and similarities of preference the two sexes had. For 
the New Product, female preferred it more strongly than males. In the Comparison 
Product, there were more equal preferences among the sexes.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 92
 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Fe m ale
Figure 5.9 - New Product Participant Scores
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12345678910
Male
Female
Figure 5.10 - Comparison Product Participant Scores
  
 
 
 
 
 
These bar graphs are numbers from the New Product and Comparison Product 
prototypes. These numbers came from the scores both male and female student 
participants gave during the picture survey. 
 
 93
 It is difficult to know exactly why the participants did not have a wider preference 
range for the two products. Another difficulty is determining which product had the most 
success, the New Product because of the averaged numerical data, the number of 
participants that stated they preferred it over the Comparison Product, or the value in the 
number of female vs. Male that preferred it? All of these factors, aided by the use of the 
biofeedback technology, point to the New Product as being most preferred over the 
Comparison Product.  
 
5.7 Discussion 
 This final session concluded with results that are definitive and yet many things to 
question such as why the margin of preference is so small. What factors contributed to 
this? What could have been done differently? Of the ten participants who were shown the 
NP first, six of them preferred the NP over the CP. Of the ten participants shown the CP 
first, five of them preferred the CP over the NP. This result provides inconclusive 
evidence that the product shown first will be more strongly received than the product 
shown second. However, as a guide, this practice can only prevent the possible 
occurrence of the first product being preferred in all instances. Just about half of the 
participants in this final session were active throughout the final session. This means that 
they were actively responding to the stimulus throughout the session. This is a positive 
conclusion to an experiment that looked to create a process to use design as a stimulus 
and measure that response to stimulus through the Galvanic Skin Response.  
 
 
 
 94
6. EXPERIMENT CONCLUSION 
6.1 GSR Chart Type Analyses  
 The design evaluation process yielded a final concept prototype as a result of 
conducting the study. However, the most important results are those that can be found by 
analyzing the GSR chart results for any trends of similarities, differences and or points of 
interest. Very clearly, three broad categories of charts emerged from the sessions. The 
qualities and descriptions of each of the categories are described in figure 6.1.  
 95
 
Type A 
The participant is actively emotionally 
responsive throughout the session. The 
chart results can sometimes be clouded 
by the amount of responses and the 
equality in strength of the responses. 
Participants who produce this chart form 
are easily stimulated by this subject 
matter. 
Type B 
Participants who produce Type B charts 
have a wide range of emotionally 
responsive levels. Visually, they have 
downward lows with immediate upward 
highs. They may or may not be reactive 
during these lows and highs making 
some results difficult to understand. 
Type C 
Type C charts are difficult to read 
because the participant has provided 
little to no response to any of the areas 
stimulus is provided. There are more 
male respondents than females in this 
chart category. 
Figure 1.1 -GSR Chart Type Analysis 
 96
 The charts were analyzed by gender and by session. The results provided some 
interesting results to draw more conclusions from for the design and incorporation into 
future studies. 
 
 6.1.1 Type A Charts 
 In each session, approximately one half of all respondents were emotionally 
responsive to the material presented throughout the session. Figure 6.2 and 6.3 are 
examples of charts from each session that visually confirm this chart type. The two charts 
from each session aid in the understanding that in more than 1 occasion, there were charts 
that supported the groupings of like type charts especially after the trend in chart types 
appeared in analysis. As stated in Figure 6.1, the characteristics of a type A chart is the 
presence of emotional responsive activity to the given material in the Session. These 
types of respondents are ideal for studies such as this because they lend the most 
information to the research phase of the study.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 97
Session 1 T
ype A Chart 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Session 2 T
ype A Charts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.2 ? Sessions 1 & 2 GSR Type A Chart Samples 
 98
Session 3 T
ype A Charts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Session 4 T
ype A Charts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.3 ? Sessions 3 & 4 GSR Type A Chart Samples 
 99
 6.1.2 Type B Charts 
 GSR Type B Charts are a representation of participants who respond to the 
stimulus with a wide range of emotional response. These charts typically are larger in 
height due to the drastic change in response levels. Most of these participants are the 
ability to respond to stimulus quickly and specifically. These charts are usually much 
easier to analyze due to the specific responses. It is also easier to observe the times that 
the participant is not as stimulated by certain areas of the experiment versus when they 
are. Figures 6.4 and 6.5 are samples taken from each of the sessions that illustrate the 
Type B Chart. Participant?s who produce these types of charts are also good participants 
to have in the study because their responses are more easily understood and can help 
provide valuable assistance to product development team. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100
Session 1 T
ype B Charts 
  
 
 
Session 2 GSR Type B Charts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.4 ? Sessions 1 & 2 GSR Type B Chart Samples 
 101
Session 3 GSR Type B Charts 
 
 
Session 4 GSR Type B Charts 
 
 
 
Figure 6.5 - Session 3 & 4 GSR Type B Chart Samples 
 102
 
 6.1.3 Type C Charts 
 GSR Type C Charts visually appear to have the lack of emotional response 
represented by a flat line in a downward motion as shown in Figures 6.6 and 6.7. These 
charts are especially difficult to analyze due to the inability to see any specific point of 
emotional response. The few responses that occur on a Type C chart are useful but can 
not be dependable. Typically the majority of these charts begins with some form of 
response and might possibly end with some response. Early response is likely to relate to 
anxiety connected to the experiment rather than any form of stimulus. These charts are 
undesirable in design evaluation because they cannot provide any positive data. It is 
possible that these participants are engaged and feel stimulated but through the process of 
GSR do not provide any visible stimulus. This is a secondary reason why combining this 
form of evaluation with a survey can be useful. However, if possible, eliminating the 
potential for this type of chart would be most desirable in designing future studies using 
GSR.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 103
Session 1 GSR Type C Chart 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Session 2 GSR Type C Charts 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.6 ? Sessions 1 & 2 GSR Type C Chart Samples 
 104
Session 3 GSR Type C Charts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Session 4 GSR Type C Charts 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.7 - Sessions 3 & 4 GSR Type C Chart Samples 
 105
 
6.2 Chart Conclusions by Session 
 6.2.1 Session 1 Chart Conclusions 
 In the analysis of the GSR charts and the creation of Chart Types, it was also 
important to analyze for any trends among who these charts were produced by. Figure 6.8 
shows the number of Male and female participants who produced which type of chart.  
 
Female Participants Type A (4) Type B (4) Type C (2) 
Male Participants Type A (5) Type B (1) Type C (4) 
 
Figure 6.8 - Session 1 GSR Chart Type Numerical Analysis by Gender 
 
 
 Many factors affected this first session and, consequently, the results. Anxiety and 
nervousness in starting the session affected at least half of the participants. This affected 
every chart type by first making the person more emotionally aroused by the situation 
therefore causing them to be reactive during the session. This behavior likely produced a 
Type A chart. Another factor is that because of this raised emotional state, it increased 
the participants? ability to experience a wider range of emotional response. For the male 
participants, it likely brought about a completely opposite response. Males are 
characteristically less emotional and even at an aroused level, it corresponds well to the 
increasing fall in emotional response, a Type C chart.  
 
 
 
 106
 6.2.2 Session 2 Chart Conclusions 
 Session 2 produced interesting results because these charts are characterized by 
the wide range of emotional response. Because of this, it was possible for a person to 
have a hybrid of responses that include remaining responsive throughout the study to 
long downward motions indicating no response mixed with wide ranges of response to 
specific stimuli. Figure 6.9 shows the number of male and female respondents and their 
corresponding chart type for Session 2. 
 
Female 
Participants 
Type A (2) Type B (4) Type C (1) Hybrid (2) 
Men Participants Type A (3) Type B (4) Type C (3) Hybrid (0) 
 
Figure 6.9 - Session 2 GSR Chart Type Numerical Analysis by Gender  
 
 
 In session 2, the participants were more aware of the procedure which likely 
helped to reduce any anxiety previously experienced. This probably increased the shift in 
male respondents having a wider range of emotional response. They were no longer, as 
previously, emotionally stimulated or reserved as noticed in the shift of charts from 
Session 1. The number of female who were previously more emotionally stimulated as in 
Session 1 shifted to include more Type B charts and the hybrid type. The change in 
session format and the familiarity with the experiment could have affected this small shift 
in chart types for this session. The decrease by 1 participant each in the Type C Chart is 
an example that the change in session format was a positive change. An increase in Type 
C charts would have indicated that the change in format was not successful which would 
have affected the final outcome of the experiment.  
 107
 6.2.3 Session 3 Chart Conclusions 
 Session 3 was different than the previous two sessions because of the introduction 
of the foam pre-prototypes. In almost all instances, the participant?s level of response 
increased dramatically when able to interact with the pre-prototype. The affects are seen 
in Figure 6.10 where there is an increase in the number of female with Type B Charts and 
the number of hybrid charts for men.  
 
Female 
Participants 
Type A (3) Type B (7) Type C (0) Hybrid (0) 
Male Participants Type A (4) Type B (1) Type C (2) Hybrid (3) 
 
Figure 6.10 - Session 3 GSR Chart Numerical Analysis by Gender 
 
 
 The format and material presented was different in Session 3 so it is not surprising 
that the chart results are different from the previous two sessions. The increase in female 
type B charts is interesting but should be expected given that females are considered 
more emotional beings than males. These female participants experienced a wide range 
of emotional responses throughout the session. Most of these female were active 
throughout the session demonstrating that the design of Session 3 provided stimulus for 
half of the participants to respond to. The increase in hybrid charts from the male 
participants shows an increase in their ability to respond to the stimulus. They 
experienced more than one kind of response. In all the charts, the period of interacting 
with the product provided a significant jump in response. Tips to improve this interaction 
may be to flash words that could be associated with the product during the time that they 
are interacting with the product to partially control what thoughts are being processed.  
 108
 6.2.3 Session 4 Chart Conclusions 
 Session 4 had a slightly different format than the previous sessions because this 
was a conclusion session. The previous sessions had helped evaluate the designs for a 
MP4 player. Session 4 was set up to evaluate how well the designer captured the 
responses from the other sessions. The biggest difference was that the introduction of a 
comparison product that had not been a part of any of the designs the participants 
evaluated over the course of the experiment. Figure 6.11 shows the numerical analysis of 
how the participants responded.  
 
Female 
Participants 
Type A (4) Type B (3) Type C (1) Hybrid (2) 
Male Participants Type A (5) Type B (1) Type C (2) Hybrid (2) 
 
Figure 6.11 - Session 4 GSR Chart Numerical Analysis by Gender 
 
 
 The format of direct comparison in Session 4 was done to evaluate how well the 
New Product represented the feedback gathered throughout the sessions. While it is now 
understood that this NP met just over one half the participants it is interesting to see the 
charts and how the participants responded. There was a serious shift in the female?s 
responses in comparison to Session 3. The shift in the men?s responses was less intense 
from that of Session 3. In an overall analysis of the charts in Session 4, there was an 
indication that the participants seem to have a familiarity with the process and an 
understanding of responding to the material.  
 
 109
 
6.3 GSR Chart Experiment Conclusions 
 As a first study using GSR as a design evaluation tool, the ability to produce such 
results is a success. These results are a contributing factor that more research and 
methods of using the biofeedback tool are needed to further confirm it as viable in design 
evaluation. Through further testing and technological improvements to the device and 
software, the ability to understand the consumer and produce more user-centered 
products is a increasing possibility. It is hoped that these early understanding of chart 
types and the understanding of how participants can respond to stimulus provided by 
ideas can enhance future studies of this nature.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 110
7. GUIDELINE FOR DESIGN EVALUATION AND BIOFEEDBACK 
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 
 
7.1 Establish if Biofeedback is Appropriate for Study  
 Biofeedback can be applied to future research, but variables need to be addressed 
to determine appropriateness for the specific research being conducted. Specifically GSR 
is recommended as the biofeedback technology to begin with due to its ease of use, 
availability, cost and understandability. There are other biofeedback technologies 
available that would require further research to see if it is has a more suitable application 
for areas of research other than design evaluation.  
 The use of biofeedback technology is recommended when involving participants 
in the design evaluation of user-centered products. As presented in this study, the 
technology gives insight into the participants? emotional reactions. Biofeedback use is not 
recommended if the research is not involving participants during the design evaluation 
phases. During design evaluation, certain products may have more success using 
biofeedback technology than others. In this study, the biofeedback technology aimed to 
capture a participant?s emotional response as they were first presented with the product. 
Using biofeedback to capture specific responses towards product details may not be the 
best use of the technology. As discovered in this study, responses towards color could not 
 111
be understood because color can have a variety of emotions attached to it despite it being 
assigned to the product. Rather, a broader goal for what the biofeedback technology will
be used in capturing is recommended. Examples would include concept evaluation to 
understand a direction the design should proceed with.  
 To aid the understanding of the biofeedback data, an additional form of gathering 
participant feedback is useful. In this study, a visual survey followed each of the design 
evaluation sessions. This data served as a benchmark for comparison and confirmation of 
the results produced by the GSR device. Once these variables have been determined, the 
research should proceed through the following recommendations. 
 
7.2 Determine Time Frame for Introduction of Biofeedback into Study 
 In the development of a product, several times decisions need to be made that 
impact the form and function. Decision making in the design evaluation periods is crucial 
to creating a product that will be valuable to the consumer. The phases in which 
biofeedback technology and participants can aid the research will need to be determined 
before beginning use of biofeedback technology. This study presents use of biofeedback 
technology in multiple evaluation phases. Determining the number of phases the product 
will go through before completion (relative to time and constraints) depends upon the 
complexity of the product and the outcome desired. For the example detailed in this 
study, the concept model or pre-prototype was the outcome desired and determined due 
to constraints. These constraints consisted of the inability to produce a working 
prototype. The number of phases determines the number of evaluation sessions 
participants will be involved in. If participants are a constraint, the number of phases may 
 112
need to be adjusted accordingly. The same action would be required with time constraints 
as well.  
 Galvanic Skin Response can aid any or all phases of design evaluation from 
brainstorming to final form evaluation. The advantage to beginning with the use of 
biofeedback is the establishment of a standard. The emotional responses can provide a 
foundation on which future decision can be made. While incorporating biofeedback at 
any time during design evaluation decision periods is acceptable, it can be understood 
that the results will not have a foundation in emotional response. It is recommended that a 
clear outcome be established if biofeedback is not going to be incorporated in the 
beginning phases. Biofeedback outcomes may enhance or vary the outcome due to the 
foundation in emotional response.  
 
7.3 Specific Uses of Biofeedback Technology in Study 
 7.3.1 Visual Presentation 
 The design of the visual presentation for the particular design evaluation phase is 
important because the GSR data recorded requires an understanding of what the 
participant was responding to at any given moment. For this reason, a presentation that is 
timed is highly recommended. This can be accomplished using Microsoft PowerPoint, 
presenting the material through a video recording or in any other method that can provide 
a record of what the participant was responding to at the given time. Being able to break 
down the time in which the participant is being stimulated by the design is important 
when comprehending the GSR charts.  
 113
 Another factor to consider in the visual presentation is any questions that the 
experiment hopes to have the participants answer. This study posed questions for the 
participant to silently answer throughout each of the sessions. It was the hope of the study 
that the thought process of saying ?yes? or ?no? would indicate a response in the GSR 
charts. In some instances this was accomplished. For others, it was not clearly defined in 
their charts. The presentation should not have participants physically indicate a response 
because movement can cause ?noise? and interference with the GSR device. This makes 
it unclear whether or not it was the participant?s intention to respond as strongly as the 
response indicates or if the noise picked up by the device creates a false impression of the 
participant?s response. For this reason, the participant is asked questions that required the 
participant to think about the question in a personal way. Such as ?Would you like to own 
this MP4 player?? Posing a question needs to be done in a way that is not general, such as 
?Do you like this MP4 player?? This form of questioning does not provide any reason for 
the participant to say yes or no. Responses can be accomplished when posed correctly 
and at the right time in the experiment.  
 
 7.3.2 Participant Screening Process 
 When recruiting target participants to involve in the evaluation of the design, it is 
important to create a screening process in order to have participants that can provide the 
best data. A preliminary test is suggested as a screening process for two purposes. First, 
for the research to be most successful, having participants that are able to provide 
measurable data is essential. The preliminary test should check for response levels to 
various stimuli. The other purpose would be to identify how long a person needs between 
 114
stimuli to return to a neutral state. This time period is an important factor because the 
previous stimulus may contribute to the results of the next stimulus unless time is allowed 
for the participant to return to a neutral state where the previous stimulus will no longer 
be a factor to the next stimulus. Based on this information, either specific experiments 
need to be set up per person, or an average of times needs to be made for a single 
experiment. Additionally, when beginning the GSR design evaluations, it is suggested 
that the participant be connected with the GSR devices for a time period without 
recording a participant?s answers in order to lessen the anxiety spike observed in this 
study. Of course, the product being evaluated should be considered when implementing 
these suggestions because additional time may not be something the product or 
experiment can afford. Almost every participant experienced an anxiety spike when the 
presentations began. However, it is important to understand that each participant will 
react differently to the stimulus. Different products may capture only a certain type of 
user. Not every user will be emotionally stimulated by the product which is why the 
screening process can assist in gather Type A users for the specific study. Type B and C 
users may not be useful to the study and should be not be used in evaluating the product.  
 
 7.3.3 Recommendations for Experiment Conductors and Environment 
 The person conducting the GSR based design evaluation experiment is also an 
important factor that could potentially contribute to the results. This person should be 
someone that the participants feel comfortable with. He or she will be talking to and 
touching the participant as they ensure the device is attached correctly. In addition to the 
conductor of the experiment, the environment the experiment is being conducted in 
 115
should be comfortable and free of possible distractions. Distractions such as other people, 
noise and pictures or objects other than ones related to the experiment should be 
eliminated from the environment. Also to be considered should be the comfort level of 
the space such as temperature, light and the chairs you wish the participant to sit in 
during the experiment. The participant should also have some freedom of movement 
while connected to the GSR device. These recommendations should help create an 
atmosphere conducive for conducting a successful experiment. 
 
 7.3.4 Recommendations for Design Evaluation Phase Materials 
 Depending upon the specific phase designated for evaluation, it is recommended 
that the materials used in the presentation follow some specific guides so that their 
inclusion produces the best data. The first guide to follow would be to provide the same 
level of integrity and quality in the presentation of the material. This should mean that 
sketches appear to have the same level of appearance so that no sketch visually appears to 
stand out. This will help prevent participants from reacting to a sketch because its 
appearance quality is inconsistent from the others presented. Other examples would 
include renderings and models. Any finish applied to the product for evaluation should 
provide fidelity throughout the presentation. 
 Inclusion of GSR in brainstorming or concept refinement can assist the product 
development team in sorting through a large number of ideas. In this study it was 
discovered that showing 20 concept sketches, one right after the other, was not conducive 
to achieving clear and understandable results for every concept sketch. Rather, the 
presentation did not make provisions for the participant becoming bored and not 
 116
responding to later concept sketches. It is suggested that no more than 25 images of the 
topic be shown during any one study. Provisions should be made to present these ideas or 
images in groups of 5 mixed with opportunities to re-evaluate the state the participant is 
in. The sets should be separated by a period in which the participant can resume a neutral 
state and then respond to the following set as if never engaged in any previous sets. 
Several possible separators such as neutral pictures, music, or even dialog may provide 
enough of a reset for the participant.  
 When evaluating product forms, it is recommended that care be taken to present 
the forms in a way that can capture optimal emotional responses from the participants. 
Keep in mind when involving form interaction in an experiment that the act of touching 
the form will act and register as a stronger stimulus than viewing an image. It will be 
difficult to control this type of stimulus when presented to the participant to touch. If this 
phase is a continuation from earlier phases that have been tested using GSR, then it is the 
suggestion that the forms be kept to images only. If no previous GSR testing has taken 
place, the inclusion of GSR may produce helpful results.  
 
7.4 Interpretation of Biofeedback Technology Results 
 There is no right or wrong way to interpret the results gathered from a 
biofeedback technology experiment. This study presented one of many ways to evaluate 
the data and draw conclusions. One factor that should be considered in deciding how to 
evaluate the results is deciding how the results will be used. After each session in this 
study, the results helped to narrow down the design ideas until the final session when the 
results were used to confirm the final design. Depending on the design of the evaluation 
 117
phase or phases that the experiment calls for, the use of the results could have varying 
uses.  
 By looking at all the GSR charts, some visual patterns should appear. Stimulating 
periods should register on all the charts although the level in which the participant 
emotionally responded will vary. Other patterns may occur as noted in this study. A Type 
chart participants were those that had some form of emotional response to every period 
that a stimulus was presented. B Type chart participants had levels of response that varied 
greatly and strongly to specific stimulus. C Type chart participants had very little 
emotional response to the stimulus. It is suggested in the screening process that these 
final chart type participants not be included in the study. The best recommendation when 
evaluating GSR chart data is personal judgment until more studies can be done to provide 
a more direct method of evaluation. 
 Following a biofeedback experiment with a survey or other method of gathering 
participant?s feedback will assist in the interpretation of the GSR data. In using a survey, 
the numerical data can provide an easy way to compare data. If using a focus group or 
any other method in which the participants verbally express their feedback then this 
would need to be formatted in a way to coordinate with the GSR data. Structured and 
moderated questions should correspond to the design evaluation materials and 
experiment. Again, judgment will be necessary in using the data for the outcome 
predetermined by the experiment design and needs of the study. 
 
 
 
 118
7.5 Conclusions 
 This guide should be used to assist future research in the areas of design 
evaluation and biofeedback technology use. This study produced initial data that seemed 
to indicate that GSR is an applicable biofeedback method that can be used to assist those 
in the design community. Other research on the incorporation of these two areas could 
not be found indicating that there is merit in researching this topic area. This guide should 
help researchers begin to discover various ways of evaluating design and interpreting the 
results. Ways to expand this research may be in the participant recruiting process and 
screening phase. This alone could potentially have dramatic results as well as choosing to 
be gender specific rather than equal numbers of men and female. Some of the suggestions 
regarding the conductor and atmosphere should be explanatory but could affect the 
results if not taken into consideration. The actual set up of the visual presentation and 
inclusion of evaluation materials could create new areas to research. The best conclusion 
to draw on before beginning research in this area is to remember that this is an exciting 
area of study and any further investigation into this topic area will uncover new data, new 
results and new topics to discover.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 119
8. CONCLUSION OF STUDY 
8.1 Summary of Study 
 This research began with the identification of biofeedback technology and 
decision to apply the technology to product design evaluation. The two areas had not 
been combined before; therefore, a method had to be created to accommodate the 
technology and to produce results for design evaluation. Research was conducted to 
justify the viability of the study. The research suggested that biofeedback technology 
could provide a more complete method of understanding a participant?s emotional 
response. These emotional responses could then be applied to design evaluation when the 
product acts as the stimulus to produce such emotional response.  
 The method created for this study met the most basic needs of data gathering 
given constraints. A product was chosen to accommodate the constraints of time, money, 
and trends. An MP4 player created an option to involve participants from Auburn 
University because they fit the ideal target audience. It was also a product that has limited 
availability and acceptance in the current market place; although these trends are 
changing. Drawings were made in preparation of the fist experiment session. 
 Participants, equal numbers of both male and female age 19 and older, were 
recruited to participate in the study. The first session was set up for each of the 20 
participants. The first session was a learning experience that influenced the latter 
sessions. First was the observation of boredom among the participants because so many 
 120
concepts were presented in the first session. Later sessions aimed at creating a more 
interesting presentation to keep the participants stimulated. Sessions 2 and 3 were more 
successful in capturing the participants? attention and the results showed that they were 
more stimulated throughout. Each of the sessions, with the exception of the initial 
session, used the outcome to create the material presented. The first session resulted in 7 
concept sketches that were used to create 5 computer generated models for Session 2. 
The results from Session 2 used the top 3 computer models to develop 3 further 
developed computer renderings and foam models for Session 3. In Session 4, the top 
model from Session 3 was developed into a pre-prototype to be compared to a 
comparison model. The final session acted as a confirmation session to gather feedback 
on the participants? preference to the final model or the comparison model.  
 
8.2 Study Accomplishments 
 The most important accomplishment of this study is the development of the 
design evaluation process using the GSR. This is important because it creates 
opportunities for future work using any or all of the discovered methods and techniques. 
In Figures 8.1 and continued in 8.2, the anticipated outcomes were compared to see if the 
goals had been met. While many of the outcomes from the session experiments were not 
expected, many of the outcomes anticipated in the beginning of this study were 
accomplished. Column 1 re-describes the outcomes anticipated in the beginning of the 
study and in column 2 are the evaluation of if the outcomes were achieved or not. In the 
individual session experiments, a separate set of anticipated outcomes were outlined. 
These were addressed in each of the discussion sections of their chapters.  
 121
 Constraints were a major factor in the inability to accomplish some goals that may 
not be stated in the text. The presentation of the products could have been aided by 
incorporating some kind of interface or at least visuals of the interface. This would have 
given a more real quality to the products than that which they achieved. Other areas that 
were not fully realized were the full level of understanding of the GSR software and 
procedure. While the level of understanding was sufficient for producing and evaluating 
results, the level of proficiency is less than desired. In addition to the results, further 
exploration into the meanings of the results could have been conducted. Time constraints 
prevented exhaustive studies of the charts and their deeper meanings from appearing in 
this text. This is the most interesting area that was not fully accomplished because it 
would include trying to analyze the emotional responses the participants were 
experiencing during the sessions. A way to possible understand this better would be to 
reformat a survey using descriptive words that the participants could choose from that 
describes their response. This still is not the same as wanting to know what the 
participant was thinking and experiencing at the time. But, this is a known constraint 
given the specific biofeedback technology utilized. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 122
Anticipated Outcome Evaluation 
Original Anticipated Outcomes Were the Anticipated Outcome Goals 
met?  Yes or No, explain. 
1. Through research on design 
evaluation, a new method for 
evaluation will be formulated 
 
Yes, a new method for design 
evaluation was developed. 
2. This new method for design 
evaluation will include biofeedback 
procedures for gathering feedback and 
an existing survey method 
 
GSR was determined to be the best 
option for using biofeedback 
technology. A picture survey was used 
as a follow up to every session. 
3. Biofeedback devices will be tested to 
insure their accurate measurement of 
reaction to design concepts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GSR did provide a measurement form 
for recording emotional reactions to 
stimuli. The chart developed could not 
provide specifically accurate reaction 
measurements. Instead, the charts 
provided a visual recording of the 
participants? responses during the 
sessions. The charts were visually 
analyzed for the participants? 
preference. 
 
Figure 8.1 ? Anticipated Outcomes 1-3 
 123
Anticipated Outcome Evaluation cont. 
Original Anticipated Outcomes Were the Anticipated Outcome Goals 
met?  Yes or No, explain. 
4. It is projected that the biofeedback 
devices and method for testing using 
design concepts will produce data that 
corresponds with a traditional survey 
method. The result will be a whole 
reaction produced from the central 
system and the peripheral nervous 
systems. 
Yes, observation of the GSR charts and 
the coordinating picture survey did 
provide coordinating results that 
suggest the result is a whole reaction 
produced by both the CNS and PNS. 
5. The selected experimental group only 
represents members within the target 
audience; however, no statistical or 
personal background information is 
collected.  
Correct, the number of men, female, 
ages and personal backgrounds were of 
no statistical value to the study except 
in providing a selection of target 
audience members. 
6. The results will produce only one 
view of how collecting information 
from the CNS and PNS correspond in 
the area of design evaluation. 
 
Yes, these results produced were one 
method of many possible methods that 
could be used to capture both CNS and 
PNS responses for the use in design 
evaluation. 
 
Figure 8.2 - Anticipated Outcomes 4-6 
 124
 
8.3 Future Areas of Study 
 This study creates opportunities for future areas of study to be conducted using 
any or all of the guidelines presented in this study. Some of the areas of study that could 
possibly produce interesting results: 
? Gender specific product development and evaluation 
? Color exploration using biofeedback technology 
? Product detail evaluation rather than overall concepts 
? Interface evaluation 
? Integration of more detailed surveys that capture more than numerical data 
? Different categories of products ? very small to very large 
? Allied areas of design such as interior design, graphic design, apparel design and 
architecture 
 All of these areas could utilize biofeedback technologies in some capacity. The 
results from these possible studies have potential for changes in evaluation standards and 
research focus areas. The commercial value could greatly enhance product success in the 
market. Commercial use of this technology for the use of evaluating product concepts 
would be an ultimate goal. Further pursuit in the development of a process for evaluating 
design using biofeedback technology should be continued and expanded. Consumers will 
be greatly effected by the introduction of such processes in the design of the products 
they use. A product that has been evaluated using a biofeedback method could become 
the next standard in products consumers look to purchase. Indicators such as stickers or 
visible logos like ?Energy Star? or ?Intel Inside? would let the consumer know that this 
 125
product is a biofeedback evaluated product. This standard would surely indicate probable 
success for consumer and the product development team.  
 Over the course of this research, the author has discovered the uniqueness of this 
area of study and the potential for furthering user-centered products by its introduction 
into the development of commercially produced products. While it is not practical to 
introduce this process to the market yet, it is the hope that others academics will apply its 
application to other areas of possible study. Only through expanded research will this 
application reach consumers and change their expectations of designed products. The 
author plans to continue this research in the direction of textile and apparel products. The 
understanding that this research has afforded is that the possibilities of bringing change to 
aspects of design and the production of products is a current issue that can be addressed 
now.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 126
BIBLIOGRAPHY / REFERENCES 
 
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback. (n.d. 2006). Biofeedback & 
Psychophysiology. Retrieved January 8, 2006, from 
http://www.aapb.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3281 
 
Baxter, M. (1995). Product Design: A Practical Guide to Systematic Methods of New 
Product Development. New York: Chapman & Hall. 
 
BBC. (2006) Science & Nature. Retrieved June 30, 2006, from 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/ 
 
Better Product Design. (2006). Tools and Techniques. Retrieved November 12, 2005 
from http://www.betterproductdesign.net/tools/index.htm 
 
Blakeslee, S. (October 18, 2004). ?If you have a ?Buy Button? in your brain, what pushes 
 it?? New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2005, from 
 http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/if-you-have-a-buy-button-in-your-
 brain-what-pushes-it 
 
Blankenship, A. B., Breen, E. and Dutka, A. (1998). State of the Art Marketing Research. 
Chicago: NTC Business Books. 
 
Conley, C. (2004). ?Leveraging Design?s Core Competencies.? Design Management 
 Review. 15(3). pp 45-51. 
 
Conley, Lucas. (Jan/Feb 2006) ?Getting Inside Your Head.? Fast Company. p 35 
 
Crandell, B. (1999). ?To Focus Group, or Not to Focus Group,? in Decision Analyst, p 2-
3. Retrieved November 6, 2005, from 
http://www.decisionanalyst.com/publ_art/focus.asp 
 
Culham, J.C. (2006). ?Functional Neuroimaging: Experimental Design and Analysis.? In 
 R. Cabeza and A. Kingstone (Eds.) Functional Neuroimaging of Cognition (pp. 
 53-82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
 
Cushman D. P. and McPhee R. D. (Eds.). (1980). Message ? Attitude ? Behavior 
 Relationship: Theory, Methodology and Application. New York: Academic Press. 
 127
Haller, T. (1983). Danger: Marketing Researcher at work. Westoport, CT: 
 Quorum Books. 
 
Dahlberg, C.P.(February 6, 2004). ?Marketers see Riches in Brain Data.? The 
Sacramento Bee. Retrieved January 8, 2006 from 
 http://www.psych.stanford.edu/~span/Press/bk0204press.html 
 
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making 
of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace. 
 
Defleur, M., Kearney, P. and Plax, T. (1998). Fundamentals of Human Communication. 
California: Mayfield Publishing Company. 
 
Donaldson, D. I. (2004).Parsing brain activity with fMRI and mixed designs: what kind 
 of a state is neuroimaging in? Trends in Neurosciences, 27(8), 442-444. Retrieved 
 September 15, 2005, from 
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01662236 
 
Getty Images. (2006). Creative Image Search. Retrieved January 28, 2006, from 
http://www.gettyimages.com 
 
Greenbaum, T.L. (1998). The Handbook for Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks, 
California: Sage Publications. 
 
Hotz, R. L. (February 5, 2005). ?Mapping the Mind: Searching for the Why of Buy.? Las 
 Angelas Times. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from 
 http://www.deanramsden.com/neuromarketing.html 
 
Industrial Design Society of America. (n.d. 2006). ID Defined. Retrieved November 2, 
2005 from http://www.idsa.org 
 
Ireland, C. (2003). ?Qualitative Methods: From Boring to Brilliant?, in Design Research: 
Methods and Perspectives, Edited by Brenda Laurel, MIT Press. 
 
Kathman, J. ( 2005). ?Building Leadership Brands by Design.? Design Management 
 Review, 16(2), 10-15. Retrieved September 16, 2005, from 
 http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/publications/journal/articlelist_d.jsp?itemID=JNL-
 V16N2 
 
Kukkonen, S. (September 22-24, 2005). ?Exploring Eye Tracking in Design Evaluation?. 
 Paper presented at the Joining Forces conference at the University of Art and 
 Design Helsinki, Finland. 
 
Last, C.G. & Hersen, M. (Eds.). (1988). Handbook of Anxiety Disorders. New York: 
 Pergamon Press. 
 128
Mello, W. (January 15, 2006). ?Inside the Consumer Mind: What Neuroscience can tell 
 us about Marketing.? Adweek. Retrieved February 27, 2006, from 
 http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/inside-the-consumer-mind-what-
 neuroscience-can-tell-us-about-marketing 
 
Mucha, T. (2005). ?This is Your Brain on Advertising.? Business 2.0, August, 35-37. 
 
Norman, D.A. (2001). ?Applying the Behavioral, Cognitive, and Social Sciences to 
Products.? Retrieved May 8, 2006 from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/applying_the_be.html 
 
Norman, D. A. (2002). ?Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better.? 
Interactions, IX (4), 36-42. Retrieved May 8, 2006 from 
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design.html 
 
Phillips, L.W. (1981). Assessing Measurement Error in Key Informant Reports: A 
 methodological Note on Organization Research. Journal of Marketing, 
 November 18, 1981, 395-415. 
 
Scanlon, Jessie (2005) ?Hello in There? I.D. September-October. 
 
Schabner, Dean. (January 13, 2004). ?Playing with Your Mind: Is Neuromarketing 
 Research Giving Advertisers the keys to your Decision Making?? ABCNews. 
 Retrieved February 19, 2006, from 
 http://medialit.med.sc.edu/playingwithyourmind.htm 
 
Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and Communication: Judgmental Biases, Research 
 Methods and the Logic of Conversation. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence 
 Erlbaum Associates Publishers.  
 
Shepard, P. (2006). ?The GSR (GSR) Meter.? Retrieved December 1, 2005, from 
http://www.trans4mind.com/psychotechnics.gsr.html 
 
Stevens, P.H. (2002). Industrial Design: A Practicing Professional. New York: Hard 
Pressed Publishers. 
 
Usability Professionals? Association (2006). Resources: About Usability. Retrieved April 
29, 2006, from 
http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/usability_resources/about_usability/what_is
_ucd.html. 
 
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications 
for Professional Practice. New York: John Wiley. 
 
 
 129
APPENDIX 
 The figures located in the appendix are a concise visual explanation for the design 
of the New Product developed through the design evaluation process developed in this 
study. The figures show comparative products, an outline of design goals and design 
specifications. For future product design, it is suggested that other literature works and 
the website www.idsa.org be consulted for assistance. This study should be used as a 
guideline for the evaluation of products in the design development phases. It should be 
noted that this section is only a concise representation of the design of a product; it 
should not be used as a guideline for designing products.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 130
 
 
Figure A1 - Comparison product images to assist in identifying possible market 
trends in design and function. 
 
 
 
 131
 
Figure A2 - Performance Criteria Chart 
 
 132
 
Figure A3 - MP4 Player Product Specifications 
 133
 
Figure A4 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant AA-F 
 134
 
 
Figure A5 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant AF-F 
 135
 
 
Figure A6 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant AM-F 
 
 136
 
 
Figure A7 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant BB-M 
 137
 
 
Figure A8 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant BW-M 
 138
 
 
Figure A9 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant CS-M 
 139
 
 
Figure A10 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant DO-F 
 140
 
 
Figure A11 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant HB-F 
 141
 
 
Figure A12 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant JC-M 
 142
 
 
Figure A13 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant JG-M 
 143
 
 
Figure A14 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant JP-F 
 144
 
 
Figure A15 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant JR-M 
 145
 
 
Figure A16 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant KP-F 
 146
 
 
Figure A17 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant LL-F 
 147
 
 
Figure A18 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant MB-M 
 148
 
 
Figure A19 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant MJ-F 
 149
 
 
Figure A20 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant SG-M 
 150
 
 
Figure A21 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant TB-M 
 151
 
 
Figure A22 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant TI-F 
 152
 
 
Figure A23 - Sessions 1-4 GSR Charts: Participant WS-M