2012
DOI: 10.1109/tpc.2012.2206190
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Combining Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocols and Eye-Tracking Observations: An Analysis of Verbalizations and Silences

Abstract: Research problem: Concurrent think-aloud (CTA) protocols are one of the dominant approaches of usability testing. However, there is still debate about the validity of the method, partly focusing on the usefulness and exhaustiveness of participants' verbalizations. The rise of eye-tracking technology sheds new light on this discussion, as participants' working processes can now be observed in more detail. Research questions: (1) What kinds of verbalizations do participants produce, and how do they relate to the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
35
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
2
35
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This is different from the commonly used think aloud method that requires that the participants should not be disturbed by the experimenter [83,84]. While the approach of allowing free talk can reveal doubts, judgments, and frustrations which cannot be obtained from eye-movement data directly [85,86], it suffers the criticism that the verbalizing of thoughts can distract participants' attention [49]. In addition, although the experimenter kept his response levels as low as possible during this experiment, these communications could also be seen to interfere with the participant thought processes and have an effect on the comparability between participants and the generality of the results.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…This is different from the commonly used think aloud method that requires that the participants should not be disturbed by the experimenter [83,84]. While the approach of allowing free talk can reveal doubts, judgments, and frustrations which cannot be obtained from eye-movement data directly [85,86], it suffers the criticism that the verbalizing of thoughts can distract participants' attention [49]. In addition, although the experimenter kept his response levels as low as possible during this experiment, these communications could also be seen to interfere with the participant thought processes and have an effect on the comparability between participants and the generality of the results.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Methodologically, the paper adds value by proposing eye-tracking as a new way of measuring destination image formation, and shows how eye-tracking can help to understand the real-time formation process in a more precise way (Elling et al, 2012;Jordan et al, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite their distinct advantages, the traditional methods used to understand web behaviour such as diaries, think-aloud techniques and post-search interviews all give room for undesired post-rationalisation (Elling et al, 2012). Less intrusive eye-tracking, on the contrary, records users" real time eyemovements (such as the number of fixations and fixation length) and precisely reflects moment-to-moment cognitive processes (Balatsoukas and Ruthven, 2012; Mariussen The Typology and Role of Online Information Sources... 149…”
Section: Stage 2: Trip Planning Exercisementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other than the adaptation of models, one requirement of a good proactive tutoring system is unobtrusiveness. Before eye-tracking technology was applied widely, research used the thinking aloud protocol [28,29]-i.e., speaking out what is on one's mind during the thinking process-to probe the cognitive process. However, this method interferes with the participants' behavior because it requires participants to perform extra tasks beyond the regular thinking process [30].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%