Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mobile Interface Attentional Priority Model

  • Original Research
  • Published:
SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mobile devices are now the most popular computing technology for accessing the Internet. This has resulted in designers devoting more of their time to improving users’ mobile experiences. This can be achieved in part by helping users find content quickly and easily. Understanding what supports or harms a user’s visual search is key to creating displays that meet usability efficiency requirements. Broadly, searches are guided by a combination of visual salience and previous experiences. We recommend revealing these influences by employing a computational saliency model and by employing our mobile spatial convention map. The research presented extends the previous attentional priority (AP) modeling work, from web pages to mobile interfaces. Notably, we reveal that users typically search a mobile web page by using a “railroad-like” viewing pattern rather than the “F” pattern that is typically described in web page research. Also, we propose a mobile web page-specific attentional priority (AP) model. The AP model combines our experience-based spatial convention map with a saliency model map. We examined the predictive performance of a saliency model, compared to the mobile-specific convention map. It was discovered that the convention map better predicted the initial deployment of attention, and the saliency map better accounted for later selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmad N, Rextin A, Kulsoom UE. Perspective on usability guidelines for smartphone applications: an empirical investigation and systematic literature review. J Inf Softw Technol. 2018;94:130–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnheim R. Art and visual perception: a psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Awh E, Belopolsky AV, Theeuwes J. Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012;16:437–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baddeley AD. Working memory. Science. 1992;255:556–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biedert R, Dengel A, Buscher G, Vartan A. Reading and estimating gaze on smart phones. In: Proceedings of the symposium on eye tracking research and applications. ACM; 2012. p. 385–8.

  6. Bradley S. Design principles: dominance, focal points and hierarchy. Smashing Magazine; 2015, February. Retrieved from https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2015/02/design-principles-dominance-focal-points-hierarchy/.

  7. Buscher G, Cutrell E, Morris MR. What do you see when you’re surfing? Using eye tracking to predict salient regions in web pages. In: Proceedings of the computer–human interaction conference; 2009. p. 21–30.

  8. Chittaro L. Visualizing information on mobile devices. Computer. 2006;39(3):40–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chittaro L. Designing visual user interfaces for mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM international symposium on engineering interactive computing systems. ACM Press; 2011. p. 331–2.

  10. Chun MM. Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4:170–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chun MM, Jiang Y. Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cogn Psychol. 1998;36:28–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Coursaris CK, Kim DJ. A meta-analytical review of empirical mobile usability studies. J Usability Stud. 2011;6:117–71.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cowan N. Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information processing system. Psychol Bull. 1988;104:163–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav Brain Sci. 2000;24:154–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Desimone R, Duncan J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1995;18:193–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Djamasbi S, Hall-Phillips A, Yang RR. SERPs and ads on mobile devices: an eye tracking study for generation Y. In: International conference on universal access in human–computer interaction. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 259–68.

  17. Dunlop M, Brewster S. The challenge of mobile devices for human computer interaction. J Pers Ubiquitous Comput. 2002;6:235–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Faraday P. Visually critiquing web pages. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on human factors and the web, Austin, TX; 2000.

  19. Fernandez-Duque D, Johnson ML. Cause and effect theories of attention: the role of conceptual metaphors. Rev Gen Psychol. 2002;6:153–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Flieder K, Modritscher F. Foundations of pattern language based on gestalt principles. CHI: Works-in-Process; 2006. p. 773–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Grier R, Kortum P, Miller J. How users view web pages: an exploration of cognitive and perceptual mechanisms. In: Zaphiris P, Kurniawan S, editors. Human computer interaction research in web design and evaluation. Hershey: Information Science Reference; 2007. p. 22–41.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Harel J, Koch C, Perona P. Graph-based visual saliency. In: Proceedings of neural information processing systems; 2006. p. 1–8.

  23. Harrison R, Flood D, Duce D. Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model. J Interact Sci. 2013;1:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ismail NA, Ahmad F, Kamaruddin NA, Ibrahim R. A review of usability issues in mobile application. J Mob Comput Appl. 2016;3:47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Itti L, Koch C, Niebur E. A model of saliency-based fast visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1998;20:1254–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jana A, Bhattacharya S. Design and validation of an attention model of web page users. Adv Hum-Comput Interact. 2015;2015:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson WA, Dark VJ. Selective attention. Annu Rev Psychol. 1986;37:43–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jones B. Understanding visual hierarchy in web design. Envato. 2011 September. Retrieved from http://webdesign.tutsplus.com/articles/understanding-visual-hierarchy-in-web-design–webdesign-84.

  29. Kim MS, Cave KR. Grouping effects on spatial attention in visual search. Gener Psychol. 1999;126:326–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kjeldskov J, Stage J. New techniques for usability evaluation of mobile systems. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2004;60:559–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Luo S, Zhou Y. Effects of smartphone icon background shapes and figure/background area ratios on visual search performance and user preferences. Front Comput Sci. 2015;9:751–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Malcolm GL, Henderson JM. Combining top-down processes to guide eye movements during real-world scene search. J Vis. 2010;10:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mariakakis A, Goel M, Aumi MTI, Patel SN, Wobbrock JO. SwitchBack: using focus and saccade tracking to guide users’ attention for mobile task resumption. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM; 2015. p. 2953–62.

  34. Masciocchi CM, Still JD. Alternatives to eye tracking for predicting stimulus-driven attentional selection within interfaces. J Hum Comput Interact. 2013;34:285–301.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Moraglia G. Display organization and the detection of horizontal lines segments. Percept Psychophys. 1989;45:265–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Norman DA. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions. 1999;6:38–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Norman DA, Shallice T. Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In: Davidson RJ, Schwartz GE, Shapiro D, editors. Consciousness and self-regulation: advances in research and theory, vol. 4. New York: Plenum Press; 1986. p. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Parkhurst D, Law K, Niebur E. Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vis Res. 2002;42:107–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pashler H. Cross-dimensional interaction and texture segregation. Percept Psychophys. 1988;43:307–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Punchoojit L, Hongwarittorrn N. Usability studies on mobile user interface design patterns: a systematic literature review. J Adv Hum Comput Interact. 2017;2017:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rayer K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull. 1998;124:372–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Repokari L, Saarela T, Kurki I. Visual search on a mobile phone display. In: Proceedings of SAICSIT; 2002. p. 253.

  43. StatCounter. Desktop vs mobile vs tablet market share worldwide [data from June 2017 to June 2018]; 2018. Retrieved from http://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet/worldwide.

  44. Still JD. Web page visual hierarchy: examining Faraday’s guidelines for entry points. J Comput Hum Behav. 2018;84:352–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Still JD. Web page attentional priority model. J Cogn Technol Work. 2017;19:363–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Still JD, Dark VJ. Examining working memory load and congruency effects on affordances and conventions. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2010;68:561–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Still JD, Dark VJ. Cognitively describing and designing affordances. J Des Stud. 2013;13:285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Still JD, Hicks J, Cain AA, Billman D. Predicting stimulus-driven attentional selection within mobile interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on cognitive and neuroergonomics; 2017. p. 255–61.

  49. Still JD, Hicks JM, Cain AA. Examining the influence of saliency within mobile interface displays. J AIS Trans Human Comput Interact. 2020;12:28–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Still JD, Masciocchi CM. A saliency model predicts fixations in web interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on model-driven development of advanced user interactions, 25–18, Atlanta, GA; 2010.

  51. Still JD, Masciocchi CM. Considering the influence of visual saliency during interface searches. In: Alkhalifa EM, Gaid K, editors. Cognitively informed intelligent interfaces: system design and development. Hershey: Information Science Reference; 2012. p. 84–97.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Still JD, Still ML. Influence of visual salience on webpage product searches. ACM J Trans Appl Percept. 2019;16:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Still JD, Still ML, Grgic J. Designing intuitive interactions: exploring performance and reflective measures. Interact Comput. 2015;27:271–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Tatler BW. The central fixation bias in scene viewing: selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor bases and image feature distributions. J Vis. 2007;14:1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Theeuwes J. Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Percept Psychophys. 1992;51:599–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Theeuwes J. Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004;11:65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wolfe JM. Guided search 4.0: Current progress with a model of visual search. In: Gray W, editor. Integrated models of cognitive systems. New York: Oxford; 2007. p. 99–119.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS. What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004;5:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Yoo HY, Cheon SH. Visualization by information type on mobile device. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Asia–Pacific symposium on information visualization, vol. 60. Australian Computer Society, Inc; 2006. p. 143–6.

  60. Zhang D, Adipat B. Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2005;18:293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ziefle M. Information presentation in small screen devices: the trade-off between visual density and menu foresight. J Appl Ergonom. 2010;41:719–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Summer Research Fellowship Program Grant from the Office of Research at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, 250 Mills Godwin Building, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Jeremiah D. Still & John M. Hicks

Authors
  1. Jeremiah D. Still
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Hicks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremiah D. Still.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Still, J.D., Hicks, J.M. Mobile Interface Attentional Priority Model. SN COMPUT. SCI. 1, 142 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00166-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00166-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation