Experiment 01

Experiment Objectives:

• Observing the different effects that different exhibition methods might have on the participants.

• Observing the effects that changing the order of experiencing the different exhibition methods might have.

• Evaluate the Assemblable walls exhibition in a controlled environment.

Date: Sunday, March 3rd of 2018

Environment: Studio in Content Design laboratory at Ohashi Campus.

Participants: 14 students ranging from second to fifth grade of elementary school.

Process: Teams of four supporters were trained in order to receive each group of students. In each team: two were in charge of recording brainwave data with the neurofeedback device, another was recording video and photos, and the remaining supporter took the role of the guide who helped the students through each exhibition as if it was a guided visit in a museum (Figure 32).

Figure 32. General layout of the experiments 01 and 02.

Throughout all the experiments, supporters were needed both for aiding with the evaluation methods and serving as guides for the students. The role of the latter was crucial since it was required for them to not only provide the appropriate explanations but also incentivize the students to observe, and answer their questions. It is important to mention that every supporter undertook training with the same conditions where the important points for dealing with children were emphasized, along with the explanations about each exhibition.

Students were divided into groups of three. For the Assemblable walls exhibition, each group would go through the three exhibition methods in a different order, these were called “patterns”, numbered from 1 to 6, each one referring to a different viewing order for the three exhibits, each exhibit required about five minutes to be experienced

(Table 2). This was done in order to investigate whether there was a difference between experiencing the three exhibition methods in different orders, as it was observed in the first trials with adults, there might be some preferences.

Table 2. The different combinations for experiencing the three exhibits

Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3 Pattern 4 Pattern 5 Pattern 6

Object Object Interactive Video Video Interactive

Video Interactive Object Interactive Object Video Interactive Video Video Object Interactive Object

Methods of evaluation: The content was evaluated via questionnaire surveys and brainwave data recorded with the Muse headband.

Results: According to the surveys, the overall satisfaction scores from the Assemblable walls exhibition were high. In a question where participants were asked to evaluate the experience with the portable exhibit overall from 1 to 5, an average of 4.92 was achieved.

Regarding individual items in the Assemblable walls exhibition in the first experiment, the highest scored item was the interactive exhibition, and the two lowest scored items were the overall environment (lighting, walls, posters), and the museum object exhibition (Figure 33). In the open comments section of the survey and conversations, we found that some of the students felt that the exhibition was too dark, which explains the low environment score. Regarding testing the different orders for experiencing the three exhibits; significant differences could not be observed.

Figure 33. Mean and Standard deviations (SD) for each item in the Assemblable walls exhibition in the first experiment.

In this case we observed an almost perfect score for the survey answers, which can also be seen in the experiments explained in later chapters. This is due to many factors that make it difficult to evaluate with young participants through surveys. For example in this case, their parents were present, and along with other children, they might have persuaded each other to have an enjoyable experience.

The brainwave data was processed using the Muse Monitor application, the application divided the data into Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta and Gamma frequencies.

However, only the data from one student was processed correctly. This issue could be attributed to the neurofeedback device being designed to fit an adult sized head, therefore not supporting the smaller head sizes of second to fifth grade children. This sizing issue therefore limited our available data. The following graph was created via

the online graphic function in Muse Monitor's guidelines (Figure 34).

Figure 34. Online Graph created with Muse Monitor, with superimposed information of what kind of stimuli took place (approximation).

A marker was inserted every time a stimulus started or finished. In the graph above they are superimposed as an example. Even here, it is possible to see that with certain stimulus, some peaks in the brainwave data occur. For example, during the video exhibition, Gamma and Beta are at their highest point; as stated above, Beta is related to

"thinking, focusing, sustained attention" and Gamma to "cognitive processing, learning".

The data from the Hands-on interactive exhibition is also presented in this graph; it will be explained in detail in the next chapter. A general decrease in most of the brainwaves can be seen: it is theorized that this sudden drop might be the result of sudden movements of the participants while experiencing the exhibition, which interfered with the positioning of the device and therefore, the reading.

However, this data was not enough to reach any conclusions. Consequently, the

brainwave data from the first experiment only served as an exercise to define best practices both for taking the brainwave data and for processing it.