• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Neurocognitive techniques and its application in product design related disciplines

Chapter-5: Neurocognitive approach to anthropomorphic product appearance evaluation

3. Neurocognitive techniques and its application in product design related disciplines

As cognitive/ neuroergonomics, neuromarketing and neuroeconomics are related disciplines, many techniques applied for the product or the brand evaluation are common. These are electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), positron emission tomography (PET), functional magnetic resonance imaging (f-MRI), facial electromyography (Facial EMG), Eye-tracking , transcortical magnetic stimulation (TMS) technique, and galvanic skin response (GSR). Commonly used neurocognitive techniques for product or brand evaluation are electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (f-MRI), Eye-tracking and galvanic skin response (GSR). Applications of different neurocognitive techniques in the fields of product and/ brand evaluation are presented in Table 5.1. Although these studies identified neuropsychophysiological basis of either product decision or brand value using different techniques, there are hardly few studies which applied

facial EMG and Eye-tracking together for the same purpose. In addition, facial EMG and Eye-tracking techniques were less explored in the determination of product choice.

Table 5.1 Applications of neurocognitive techniques in different fields related to design and social sciences.

Author (s) Purpose

Neurocognitive techniques

EEG MEG PET f-MRI Facial EMG

Eye-

tracking TMS GSR Kenning, &

Linzmajer (2011)

Price policy

Product policy

Communication policy

Distribution policy

Brand research

       

Kenning, Plassman, &

Stanford (2007)

Brand choice

Product choice

Advertisement

       

Garcia, &

Saad (2008) Brand choice

Product choice

Price distinctions

       

Dapkevicius,

& Melnikas (2009)

Brand building

Product quality

Product choice

price distinctions

       

Fugate 2008) Brand personality

Service products

Emotional satisfaction

Product decision

       

Wilson, Gaines, &

Hill (2008)

Decision making

Persuasion

       

Javor et al.

(2013) Trustworthiness evaluation

Prediction of the other person‟s future action

Calculation of future reward

Processing of cognitive conflict

       

Neto, Filipe,

& Ramalheiro (2011)

Product colour

Product price

Product choice

Branding

       

Butler (2008) Brand positioning

Advertising

Pricing

       

Madan (2010) Brand familiarity

Product preference

Advertisement

       

Morin (2011) Advertisement

Brand choice

Product choice

       

Eser , Isin &

Tolon (2011) Advertisement

Brand choice

Product choice

       

Lee, Butler &

Senior (2010) Advertisement

Brand choice

Product choice

       

Vecchiato et

al. (2010) Advertisement

       

Murphy, Illes,

& Reiner (2008)

Brand preference

Product effectiveness

Product validity

       

Lee, Broderick, &

Chamberlain (2007)

Smell of product

Colour of product

Brand trust

Advertisement

       

Farah (2005) Consumers‟ desire for product

Brand preference

       

Hubert (2010) Advertisement

Product policy

Brand impact

       

Maa et al.

(2008) Brand/ product

extension

       

Laparra- Herna´ndez et al. (2009)

Emotion

Product experience

Product perception

Product evaluation

       

Miesler, Leder, &

Herrmann (2011)

Affect/ Emotion

Automobile design

Product perception

Product evaluation

       

van der

Zwaag et al.

(2013)

Emotion

Mood

Driving experience

       

Windhager et

al. (2008) Emotion

Automobile design

Product perception

Product evaluation

       

Windhager et

al. (2010) Emotion

Product perception

Product evaluation

       

van den

Broek &

Westerink (2009)

Emotion

Product experience

Product perception

Product evaluation

       

Clement

(2007) Brand Choice

Packaging design

Buying decision

       

N o t e

: In this table, ‘Cross’ mark designates the technique which is not mentioned in the study; whereas, the ‘Tick’ mark in the table means the opposite fact.

Table 5.2 Summary of the main brain areas of interest to consumer neuroscience.

Source: This figure is adapted from: Solnais et al. (2013)

These neurocognitive techniques are so sensitive that if we are able to use these techniques (one or more than one) for product evaluation it gives us insights about neuropsychophysiological basis of buying behaviour and product choice (Butler, 2008; Damasio, 1996; Dapkevicius and Melnikas, 2009). Please see various purposes of studies which employed these neurocognitive techniques in

Brain area Key functions of interest

Amygdala Processing of emotions, particularly negative emotions; aversive responses to inequity

Modulator of the memory system

Anterior cingulate Integration of emotional and motivational information in the decision-making process

Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)

Internal conflict between alternative options

Cognitive control, including over impulses towards social norm compliance Hippocampus Formation and consolidation of memory (long-term memory)

Acquisition and recall of declarative memory

Insula Perception and expectation of risks (e.g. financial and social risks)

Anger and disgust against unfair economic situations Occipital lobe Processing of visual stimuli

Orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)

Evaluation of the capacity of outcomes to satisfy one‟s needs

Experience and anticipation of the emotion of regret when outcomes differ from expectations

Striatum Evaluation of actual rewards with respect to expectations

Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC)

Representation of the threat of punishment for non-compliance with social norms

Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC)

Processing of different alternatives and their perceived value Pieters, &

Warlop (1999)

Brand choice

Decision making

       

Chowdhury et

al. (2012) Brand recognition

Orthography

       

Singh, & Das

(2010) Automobile design

Visual attention

       

Chowdhury et

al. (2013) Website design

Product choice

Product personality

       

Table 5.1. After many studies which employed these techniques, now, researchers have identified the brain areas responsible for different buying behaviours.

Identified functions of different brain areas were presented in Table 5.2.

Figure 5.3 Percentage of neurocognitive technique usage.

In present thesis, total 30 articles related to the application of neurocognitive techniques in brand/product design evaluation were reviewed.

Among these studied literature, around 50.0% of the studies mentioned about EEG, 26.7% mentioned about MEG, 13.3% mentioned about PET, 63.3%

mentioned about f-MRI, 30.0% mentioned about eye-tracking, 13.3% mentioned about TMS and 16.7% studies mentioned about GSR. Therefore, it was profound that maximum studies applied f-MRI for product/brand evaluation whereas, comparatively very few studies were reported about eye-tracking and facial EMG based product evaluation (Figure 5.3). Moreover, f-MRI is a much costlier technique than the eye-tracking and facial EMG. Literature review from journals related to cognitive and neuroergonomics, neuromarketing and design, it become clear that few neurocognitive techniques are common across these three disciplines. These techniques are eye-tracking, facial EMG and GSR (Figure 5.4).

Therefore, these techniques may be more fruitful for the present thesis work. As

the ergonomics laboratory of the Department of Design, IIT- Guwahati has BIOPAC MP-100 EMG system and SMI-HED-Eye-tracking system; hence, it was feasible to evaluate anthropomorphic product appearances only through two techniques facial EMG and eye-tracking, for the present thesis work.

Figure 5.4 Similar psychophysiological techniques have been used in different related field for product evaluation.

4. Study 1: Facial EMG based evaluation of product appearance