Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T03:37:16.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INVESTIGATING THE PROCESS, DESIGN OUTPUTS AND NEUROCOGNITIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOTYPING ACTIVITIES WITH PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL LEGO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Adam McClenaghan ,
Mark Goudswaard  and
Ben Hicks
Adam McClenaghan*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Mark Goudswaard
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Ben Hicks
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
*
McClenaghan, Adam Joseph, University of Bristol, United Kingdom, adam.mcclenaghan@bristol.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Design neurocognition is an emerging research area that can provide insights into the black box of designers’ cognitive processes. However, work to date has focused on neurocognition on its own, without integrating this with other design measures. This paper presents the results of a pilot study which brings together designer neurocognition with design output and assessment of the design process followed in a constrained prototyping activity comparing use of physical and digital Lego. This was achieved via EEG data capture, a TLX survey and measures of design output variance. Differences between physical and digital prototyping methods were found with respect to Task Related Powers of EEG signals and the design process followed with digital prototyping methods found to take longer, require more effort and cause more frustration. No differences were found with regard to design output. Whilst the sample size used (n=12) was small, future studies will use large sample sizes to increase their statistical power and will consider alternative EEG or fNIRS to capture brain activity due to challenges with the headset used in this study.

Keywords

Design cognitionDesign methodsNeurocognitionPrototypingHuman behaviour in design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2365 - 2374
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Baiters, S., Weinstein, T., Mayseless, N. and Auernhammer, J. (2022), “Design science and neuroscience: A systematic review of the emergent field of design neurocognition”, Design Studies. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.destud.2022.101148.Google Scholar
Delorme, A. and Makeig, S. (2004), “Eeglab: an open-source toolbox for analysis of eeg dynamics”, Journal of neuroscience methods, Vol. 134, pp. 9–21. http://doi.org/10.1016Zj.jneumeth.2003.10.009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donati, C. and Vignoli, M. (2014), “How tangible is your prototype? designing the user and expert interaction”, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), Vol. 9. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-014-0232-5.Google Scholar
Eppinger, S. and Browning, T. (2012), Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications. http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8896.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garde, J. and van der Voort, M. (2016), “Could lego® serious play® be a useful technique for product co - design?”, http://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudswaard, M., Gopsill, J., Harvey, M., Snider, C., Bell, A. and Hicks, B. (2021a), “Revisiting prototyping in 2020: A snapshot of practice in uk design companies”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Vol. 1, pp. 2581–2590. http://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudswaard, M., Snider, C., Gopsill, J., Jones, D., Harvey, M. and Hicks, B. (2021b), “The prototyping fungibility framework”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 100, pp. 271-276. 31st CIRP Design Conference 2021 (CIRP Design 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggman, A., Tsai, G., Elsen, C., Honda, T. and Yang, M. (2015), “Connections between the design tool, design attributes, and user preferences in early stage design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 137. http://doi.org/10.1115/1.4030181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homan, R.W. (1988), “The 10-20 electrode system and cerebral location”, American Journal of EEG Technology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 269–279. http://doi.org/10.1080/00029238.1988.11080272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houde, S. and Hill, C. (1997), “Chapter 16 - what do prototypes prototype?”, in: Helander, M.G., Landauer, T.K. and Prabhu, P.V. (Editors), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (Second Edition), North-Holland, Amsterdam, second edition edition, pp. 367–381. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50082-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isa, S., Steinert, M. and Liem, A. (2015), “The value of prototypes in the early design and development process”.Google Scholar
LeoCAD (2022), “LeoCAD - a CAD application for creating virtual lego models”. https://www.leocad.org/Google Scholar
Lim, Y.k., Stolterman, E. and Tenenberg, J. (2008), “The anatomy of prototypes”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 15, pp. 1–27. http://doi.org/10.1145/1375761.1375762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathias, D., Hicks, B., Snider, C. and Ranscombe, C. (2018), “Characterising the affordances and limitations of common prototyping techniques to support the early stages of product development”, Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, Vol. 3, pp. 1257–1268. http://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NASA (2020), “NASA task load index”. https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/tlx/Google Scholar
Pion-Tonachini, L., Kreutz-Delgado, K. and Makeig, S. (2019), “Iclabel: An automated electroencephalographic independent component classifier, dataset, and website”, NeuroImage, Vol. 198. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.05.026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schomer, D.L. and Lopes da Silva, F.H. (2017), Niedermeyer's Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vieira, S., Gero, J., Delmoral, J., Gattol, V., Fernandes, C. and Fernandes, A. (2019a), “Comparing the design neurocognition of mechanical engineers and architects: A study of the effect of designer's domain”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1, pp. 1853–1862. http://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.191.Google Scholar
Vieira, S., Gero, J., Delmoral, J., Gattol, V., Fernandes, C., Parente, M. and Fernandes, A. (2019b), “Understanding the design neurocognition of mechanical engineers when designing and problem-solving”, http://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2019-97838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieira, S., Gero, J., Delmoral, J., Gattol, V., Fernandes, C., Parente, M. and Fernandes, A. (2020), “The neurophys- iological activations of mechanical engineers and industrial designers while designing and problem-solving”, Design Science, Vol. 6, pp. 1–35. http://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar