Undergraduate at UMASS Amherst. Studying Computer Science, Biology, Math, and Ethical Research
ResumeCategory: Research
Paper Type: Empirical
Abstract— This paper aims to explore related works pertaining to a theoretical study on older adults and their experiences with at home embedded displays. In this study, the goal is to examine older adult’s perception and interactions with common displays used in daily life. The related works laid out here relate to; at-home display considerations, cognitive and psychological changes with aging, barriers for older adults when utilizing technology, pro-gerento design choices for displays, and research categorizations of displays. The hope is to give context to the purpose and analysis of the purposed study, and shed light on previous research that relate to and inspire this work. Index Terms—older adults, data visualization, information displays
Our study serves to dive further into older adults and their experiences using home embedded displays. To tackle this, we compiled related work that explore: The context of home devices in a general sense, and what characteristics are most important with respect to how we interact and react to them (Section 2). Context surrounding the psychological and neurological changes that come from aging are also considered, serving as a basis for much of the geronto-specific factors involved in display interaction (Section 3). Additionally, we denote related work on the topic of older adults specific perceptions towards displays. We do so by mentioning work that highlights possible obstacles in technological use that often arise for this demographic (Section 4), as a well as writing that focuses on the specific design choices of devices that typically impact older adult interaction with their devices (Section 5). Lastly, our analysis relies on categorizations of the embedded displays that we worked with, and thus related papers on categorization are considered (Section 6).
Our study deals with displays used in a user’s home and daily life. This specific category of displays has its own properties to unpack, including what characteristics of the device affect the user’s experience the most.
2.1 Emotional Considerations
Users emotional reactions are most closely tied to their perceived perfor-
mance of the device. Wu et al. [21] focused on intelligent microwaves
and denoted the hierarchy of user demands. They described the function
of a product as the primary tier, the most important aspect of a prod-
uct. Similarly, Sepahpour et al. [17] conducted analysis of emotional
responses to perceived product performance. The study categorized
positive and negative responses of participants. They found positive
comments correlated mostly with a success in the products function.
On the same note, they correlated the biggest reason for negative com-
ments as coming from failure in functionality. Surprisingly though,
they found that some negative response came from perceived positive
performance of the product. In these odd cases, the product’s purpose,
perceived as negative, meant unhappiness with the product as a whole.
2.2 Presentation Considerations
Further studies show that user response is not only tied to functionality,
but also how and where the device is presented. Lyn et al. [2] recog-
nized further design traits like ecology and functional aesthetics of an
at-home display as being important to its effectiveness and consumer
engagement. The study expressed that it is equally important for a
visualizations appearance to be appealing on its own, and contribution
to the space as a whole. Wood et al. [20] highlighted simplicity, empha-
sizing that the avoidance of overloading information is critical when
displaying data about energy consumption. These sentiments around
aesthetics and simplicity are extended by Wu et al. [21], explaining that
dot matrices could be the right direction in designing displays for smart
microwaves. The paper justified this claim, by explaining that these
matrices can show 2 million pixels in their menu, leading to intuitively
understandable visualizations of function. Additionally, they denoted
that they turn off when not used, a preferred characteristic for home
displays. Ultimately, the paper suggests that these displays can simplify
function, as Wood et al. [20] endorsed, and bring aesthetic value to its
functional context, as Lyn et al. [2] remarked.
There are a multitude of Neurological and Psychological changes asso- ciated with an aging brain, this section is meant to highlight research on these changes and how they manifest.
3.1 Cognitive/Neurological changes
By observing neuroimaging studies we are able to compare neural activ-
ity of younger and older participants. Working memory is derived from
the idea of short-term memory; it is limited capacity for brief use [15].
Reuter et al. [14] found similarity between working memory activ-
ity between younger and older adults, with main differences in lower
objective memory load regions where older participants had higher
activity. The study suggested that the aging mind allocates additional
resources to support short-term maintenance. As load increases (the
number of items to remember), older adults show behavioral decline
because of less prefrontal activation compared to younger adults. The
claim is made that this phenomenon hints at a resource ceiling being
reached. Grady et al. [6] similarly emphasized reduction in working
memory performance for older adults, associated with reduced brain
activity. Conversely, “over-recruitment”, typically found in frontal
lobes, is reported on. Additional recruitment potentially compensates
for brain structure and function changes that come with aging. It could
also illustrate an increased reliability of frontally mediated executive
functions, thus not being directly proportional to performance but rather
the difficulty of a task (when using working memory processes).
The theory of compensatory recruitment of prefrontal areas is ad-
ditionally supported by Reuter et al. [15], who claimed additional
recruitment of prefrontal areas can be beneficial to performance. The
authors notes, however, that the reason for activation differences can
stem from age-related differences in performance or how these age
groups approach tasks. Park et al. [13] made supporting claims that an
aging brain is very much full of energy, despite the front and medial
temporal cortices exhibiting loss of volume with age. The explanation
presented is older adults have more neural activation distribution, acti-
vating multiple regions, like the over-activation of frontal or prefrontal
cortex previously mentioned, whereas younger brains might only use
one for the same task.
Item recognition tasks are processed in three stages; (1) encoding,
where memory is perceived and encoded into working memory, (2)
rehearsal, where information is is maintained in an active state, and (3)
recognition, where an item is matched to the retrieved item in working
memory [15]. Reuter et al. [15] stated that age-related changes in
executive attentional control and inhibition increases vulnerability to
interference. In the encoding stage, interference would mean irrelevant
information takes up working memory space, inhibiting retrieval task
performance. This describes selective attention. This could come in
the form of previous retrieval material seeping into a current process,
known as proactive interference. Reuter et al. [14] built off this through
the inhibitory deficit theory, stating older adults’ deficiency in deletion
of non-relevant information and lack of activation for attentional se-
lection. Aging can challenge the performance of every day tasks, and
pointing out neurological correlations helps give reasoning for these
challenges.
3.2 Psychological Changes
Whether as a result of neurological changes or by the social affects of
aging, there are many psychological changes that can arise and manifest
particularly for older adults. These changes should be acknowledged to
better understand why older adults may respond to technology in the
way that they do. Henry et al. [7] posited four pillars of social cogni-
tive aging, areas that become increasingly difficult as the mind ages;
social perception, theory of mind, the inability to understand mental
states of others, affective empathy as in strong emotional responses, and
inappropriate social behavior. While many of the labs testing these
changes did not adequately simulate day to day interactions, they nev-
ertheless found deterioration of these pillars as. These problems were
less likely when participants communicated with people they knew,
however. Akhter-Khan et al. [1] stated older adults often prioritize
meaningful interactions that fulfill a sense of purpose, pointing to the
common loss of functional and cognitive abilities from aging as a rea-
son for this pattern. In this way, older adults with less perceived time
will focus on emotional goals over knowledge-based ones. Thus, as
the the socio-emotional selectivity and selective engagement theories
suggest [7], older adults may often choose to focus their energy on
interactions with people they know and love, and much less emotional
time and energy on any other interaction.
Henry et al. [7] wrote older adults often expect loss over reward,
and change their goal orientation from striving for reward to focusing
on maintenance and loss avoidance. This in turn sets off the shift to
emotional goals, as mentioned. Cognitive effort evaluations by these
older adults are how they reason as to what to spend their cognitive
energy on. To reinforce where is best to prioritize energy, older adults
may adopt selective optimization with compensation, coping strategies
[1]. According to Akheter et al. [1], this often looks like: selection of
easier fulfillment’s, optimization via allocation of resources for better
function of specific tasks, and compensating by substituting processing
or adapting to loss.
Coping strategies can often lead to reduction in loneliness for older
adults [1]. However, older adults’ social relationship expectations,
often not met due to modern social norms on aging and ageism, can
lead to more loneliness. Additionally, Independence may often be a
priority, and can lead to a downplaying of one’s illness, or inability to
ask for help, leading to more reasons for loneliness to develop [1].
Many biological hallmarks of aging inherently lead to major depres-
sion disorder (MDD). Lorenzo et al. [10] reported several hallmarks
such as; loss of proteostasis which guides proteins through their life
cycle, stem cell exhaustion, inhibition of stem cells to proliferate and
differentiate, immunoinflammatory changes, and deregulated nutrient
sensing, changes in multiple cell processes. All of which can lead to
development of MDD. Chan et al. [4] similarly emphasized alterations
in neurotransmitter systems from aging have been linked to mood disor-
ders. They add that on top of these predispositions to depression, older
adults often experience significant life changes in older age, stressors
that can trigger depression.
Clearly the neurological/cognitive and psychological changes of
aging go hand in hand, one affecting the other. This context is important
when evaluating how older adults chose to interact with technology, as
it gives reasoning for much of the findings discussed in the following
sections.
An extensive number of possible hurdles for older adults when adopting and using technology must be considered. This section breaks down potential barriers before and after an older adult may decide to use a device.
4.1 Barriers to Adoption of Technology
Older adults have many important considerations when making the
decision to interact with their devices. Lee et al. [9] and Yusif et al. [22]
each reviewed papers associated with barriers for older adults’ tech-
nology adoption. The former emphasized that older adults tend to not
interact with a technology until it is deemed useful and its advantages
are acknowledged. This is a contrast to opinions on usefulness dis-
cussed in Section 2, which came from a wider demographic. While
perceived usefulness affects the wider populations reaction, older adults
take it one step further in abstaining from using the device to begin
with. The ladder, Yusif et al. [22], builds upon this, and observed that
the assistive technology is was more often accepted when an older adult
feels it can address a felt need. Perceived functionality is echoed in
experimental groups, like that of Vaportzis et al. [18]. In this study,
older adult participants expressed willingness to learn technologies,
given that they were convenient. In a related study, Mitzner et al. [11]
found most comments on technology by older adult participants cen-
tered around the viewed convenience and usefulness of its features.
While these findings provide an important baseline to understand the
motivation of older adults when interacting with technology, the deci-
sion to first use is primarily dictated by the perceived usefulness of the
device.
4.2 Barriers to Technology After Adoption
Once older adults adopt these devices into regular use, further obsta-
cles arise. Owsley et al. [12] conducted a study on older adults and
their views on gauge cluster designs in vehicles. They observed a
high percentage of negative comments surface around difficulty with
understanding the vehicle’s manual. This is further represented in opin-
ions within Vaportzis et al. [18], when participants with less computer
experience reported lack of instruction as a leading hindrance. Lee
et al. [9] put ease of learning as well as technical support as essential
for breaking barriers between older adults and devices. Additionally,
emotional impact is emphasized in the review: older adults can view
a device as negatively impacting their social interactions as well as
promoting a dependency, thus solidifying a fear of isolation and lack of
independence. Vaportzis et al. [18] observed many comments around
participants’ fear of having too much technology and less socializing.
Other opinions centered around feelings of inadequacy and a lack of
confidence.
Overall, older adults develop a willingness to use devices based on
their usefulness, but most commonly end up being barred by lack of
proper support when learning to operate it, or through fear of isolation
and loss of independence.
When developing displays for older adults, it is the specific design choices that greatly affect the ease of use for the intended user. Re- searchers have found certain designs to be better for older adults, al- though it is not an exact science.
5.1 Visual Design Choice
Zhao et al. [23] conducted experimental studies on exercise bikes in
elderly homes, and found that device design for older adults should
encourage intuitiveness and visibility above all. This is in line with
various findings from user studies who denoted superior design choices
for specific display characteristics. With respect to visibility, both
Zhao et al. [23] and Vaportzis et al. [18] recommended larger screens.
For older adults, Owsley et al. [12] and Consolvo et al. [5] supported
purposeful color distinction of display icons, based on participant pref-
erence. The former also supported utilization of larger text. When
thinking of intuitiveness, Mitzner et al. [11] reported older participants
being overwhelmed by too many functions or buttons. Vaportzis et
al. [18] found similar patterns, as participants noted there being far
too many buttons on tablets given to them, especially because they
felt they were not properly labeled. When thinking of how a device
can best communicate to older users, Zhao et al. [23] recommended
enabling voice instruction. However, these additional tools can prove
problematic: Waycott et al. [19], in a study with older participants,
found something like the auto complete for texting to be unhelpful.
5.2 Physical/Interactive Design Choices
Button design, not just the number of them, is notably important in
aging-aware displays. Jin et al. [8] explored this in a study on older
adults’ response to button spacing and size. They found both to be most
affected by the manual dexterity of the user and the desired reaction
time of the designer. For the average older adult, they recommended
16.55mm sized buttons and 6.35 mm spacing, but for those with poorer
dexterity or slower reaction time, upwards of 19mm size and 12mm
spacing was encouraged. Jin et al. [8] highlighted an example of how
many design choices are varied by the individual, most importantly
by their respective medical setbacks. It is the same reason why tablet
size had a wide range of opinion in a study by Vaportzis et al. [18]:
some participants enjoyed the larger tablet and others the lightweight
design. This is further illustrated by participants in a study by Waycott
et al. [18], who could neither hold their tablet nor type well without a
flat surface due to their arthritis. Consolvo et al. [5] found their ambi-
ent display gave elderly individuals issues as its glow was distracting
and harmful to their eyes. Bobbeth et al. [3] expressed how the het-
erogeneity of older adults should be taken into account when making
design choices for modern interfaces. This sentiment is evidenced
above. While some design choices can clearly be catered, others are
very much dependent on the individual, and thus design cannot be so
straightforward or generalized to all older adults, for a multitude of
characteristics.
The study being presented will rely on categorizing display character- istics through responses from participants. This section is meant to explore previous categorizing implementations to find what worked well.
6.1 Categorizations in Experimental Papers
The categorization of displays defines how a paper will analyze and
present it data. Certain partitions of categories can be more helpful
and frequent between literature. Mitzner et al. [11] conducted an ex-
perimental study wherein they categorized participants’ comments by
generating codes describing aspects of electronic displays. Some dis-
play dimensions included; convenience, feedback, reliability, features,
activity support and complexity. Comments in categories were sepa-
rated further by defining each as being a positive or negative opinion
towards this display characteristic. Following this, an analysis based
on the number of negative or positive comments in each grouping oc-
curred. Ultimately, this allowed the authors to make suggestions in
terms of specific design choices based upon the frequency and posi-
tivity/negativity of category comments. Sepahpour et al. [17] used a
similar method when categorizing their participant’s comments. Specif-
ically, they divided responses into three sections of product aspects;
aesthetic, functional, and symbolic. They also divided comments into
perceived product performance (poor or satisfactory) and the emotions
associated with the comment. Similar to Mitzner et al. [11] in analysis,
Sepahpour et al. [17] found overlap between partitioned comments and
were able to make generalizations on how poor and satisfactory func-
tionality affected users’ resulting emotions. Through categorization of
displays, followed by the coding of participant response through these
states, both Mitzner et al. [11] and Sepahpour et al. [17] were able
to pinpoint the effects of display characteristics on user perspective.
Specifically, they both found insight on display features and aesthetic,
as well as functionality and reliability/complexity/activity-support.
6.2 Categorizations in Theoretical Papers
State categorizations of displays come up, and are helpful, in theoretical
papers as well as experimental ones. Sanguinetti et al. [16] used cate-
gorizations of display characteristics in their review of previous works.
Specifically, they analyzed discussions on eco-feedback displays, and
yielded three main dimensions; display, timing, and information. Dis-
play is split into accessibility and mechanism. The former refers to
how the display is presented, including its style, modality, and medium.
The latter speaks on the intended audience, and location of it, and if a
response is required from the user. Timing has three subcategories of
latency: response for an interaction frequency, duration of the display
being on or updated, and the strategic timing of information presenta-
tion. Information is divided into granularity and message. Granularity
encompasses the behavioral, and temporal behavioral, as well as the
magnitude, of the data being presented. Messaging includes what
metric, valence, and context is associated with the data. Ultimately,
Sanguinetti et al. [16] believes working on Eco-displays through the
lens of these categories can promote ideal attention, learning, and mo-
tivation by the display in question. Bartam et al. [2] similarly wrote
a theoretical design paper on Eco-feedback displays. Their main five
categories were; data, psychological factors, effort, context, and com-
municative scope. These dimensions’ generation were underpinned
by three factors; knowledge (cognitive), motivation, and effort (tech-
nological overhead). They are meant to be used to motivate change
in currently-problematic designs. Through their categorizations, both
Sanguinetti et al. [16] and Bartam et al. [2] developed essential design
dimensions to be used in display development. Both cited similar goals
of motivation, effort or attention, and learning or knowledge as intended
results of characterizing their respective categories. Although these
papers are about Eco-feedback displays, their categories can be applied
to informational displays at large, such as those often found in homes.
Both theoretical and experimental work has shown categorizing dis-
plays can pinpoint the most important design dimensions. Among
examples of both these types of studies [11] [17] [16] [2], common
themes were the importance of aesthetic/presentation, contextualization,
and effectiveness of display data. By partitioning design dimensions
and gathering evidence for the importance of each, either through par-
ticipants or related works, authors were able to make recommendations
on what design factors were most important to users.
Relevant information for the purposed paper is presented through these related works. It is the hope that each section will provide background in the analysis of the data collected, so proper care can be taken to address this multi-faceted topic. By addressing considerations pertain- ing to design of displays, social influence, natural processes of aging, perceived vs actual function of devices, and analysis techniques, this paper is meant to build a foundation for future work.
[1] S. C. Akhter-Khan, M. Prina, G. H.-Y. Wong, R. Mayston, and L. Li.
Understanding and addressing older adults’ loneliness: the social rela-
tionship expectations framework. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
18(4):762–777, 2023. 2
[2] L. Bartram. Design challenges and opportunities for eco-feedback in the
home. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 35(4):52–62, 2015. 1,
3
[3] J. Bobeth, S. Deutsch, S. Schmehl, and M. Tscheligi. Facing the user
heterogeneity when designing touch interfaces for older adults: a repre-
sentative personas approach. NordiCHI 2012 Proceedings, pp. 1–4, 2012.
3
[4] A. S. W. Chan, S. W. H. Chan, and E. Yan. Healthy aging, mental health,
and sexuality, 2023. 2
[5] S. Consolvo, P. Roessler, and B. E. Shelton. The carenet display: lessons
learned from an in home evaluation of an ambient display. In International
conference on ubiquitous computing, pp. 1–17. Springer, 2004. 2, 3
[6] C. L. Grady. Cognitive neuroscience of aging. Annals of the new york
Academy of Sciences, 1124(1):127–144, 2008. 1
[7] J. D. Henry, S. A. Grainger, and W. von Hippel. Determinants of so-
cial cognitive aging: Predicting resilience and risk. Annual Review of
Psychology, 74:167–192, 2023. 2
[8] Z. X. Jin, T. Plocher, and L. Kiff. Touch screen user interfaces for older
adults: button size and spacing. In Universal Acess in Human Computer
Interaction. Coping with Diversity: 4th International Conference on Uni-
versal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, UAHCI 2007, Held as Part
of HCI International 2007, Beijing, China, July 22-27, 2007, Proceedings,
Part I 4, pp. 933–941. Springer, 2007. 3
[9] C. Lee and J. F. Coughlin. Perspective: Older adults’ adoption of tech-
nology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5):747–759, 2015. 2
[10] E. C. Lorenzo, G. A. Kuchel, C.-L. Kuo, T. E. Moffitt, and B. S. Diniz.
Major depression and the biological hallmarks of aging. Ageing research
reviews, 83:101805, 2023. 2
[11] T. L. Mitzner, J. B. Boron, C. B. Fausset, A. E. Adams, N. Charness, S. J.
Czaja, K. Dijkstra, A. D. Fisk, W. A. Rogers, and J. Sharit. Older adults
talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Computers in human
behavior, 26(6):1710–1721, 2010. 2, 3
[12] C. Owsley, G. McGwin Jr, and T. Seder. Older drivers’ attitudes about
instrument cluster designs in vehicles. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
43(6):2024–2029, 2011. 2
[13] D. Park and A. Gutchess. The cognitive neuroscience of aging and culture.
Current directions in psychological science, 15(3):105–108, 2006. 1
[14] P. A. Reuter-Lorenz and D. C. Park. Human neuroscience and the aging
mind: a new look at old problems. Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65(4):405–415, 2010. 1, 2
[15] P. A. Reuter-Lorenz and C.-Y. C. Sylvester. The cognitive neuroscience
of working memory and aging. Cognitive neuroscience of aging: Linking
cognitive and cerebral aging, pp. 186–217, 2005. 1, 2
[16] A. Sanguinetti, K. Dombrovski, and S. Sikand. Information, timing, and
display: A design-behavior framework for improving the effectiveness of
eco-feedback. Energy Research & Social Science, 39:55–68, 2018. 3
[17] G. Sepahpour, A. Blackler, and M. Chamorro-Koc. The connection be-
tween perceived product performance and evoked emotions. In Congress
of the International Association of Societies of Design Research, pp. 1956–1972. Springer, 2021. 1, 3
[18] E. Vaportzis, M. Giatsi Clausen, and A. J. Gow. Older adults perceptions
of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: a focus
group study. Frontiers in psychology, 8:1687, 2017. 2, 3
[19] J. Waycott, S. Pedell, F. Vetere, E. Ozanne, L. Kulik, A. Gruner, and
J. Downs. Actively engaging older adults in the development and evalua-
tion of tablet technology. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-
Human Interaction Conference, pp. 643–652, 2012. 3
[20] G. Wood and M. Newborough. Influencing user behaviour with energy
information display systems for intelligent homes. International journal
of energy research, 31(1):56–78, 2007. 1
[21] D. Wu. Research on the interaction design of intelligent microwave
oven based on user demand. In 2017 23rd International Conference on
Automation and Computing (ICAC), pp. 1–6. IEEE, 2017. 1
[22] S. Yusif, J. Soar, and A. Hafeez-Baig. Older people, assistive technologies,
and the barriers to adoption: A systematic review. International journal of
medical informatics, 94:112–116, 2016. 2
[23] Y. Zhao, B. Hamat, T. Wang, and L. L. L. Pang. Research on compre-
hensive evaluation and optimization design methods for the elderly home
exercise bikes. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Innovation Design and Digital Technology, ICIDDT 2023, November 3–5,
2023, Zhenjiang, China, 2024. 2, 3