Aging and Input Devices: Voice Recognition Performance is Slower Yet More Acceptable than a Lightpen

Microcomputers are ubiquitous to modern society, yet older adults consistently perform more poorly than younger counterparts using standard input devices (e.g. a mouse). Prior research has revealed that direct positioning devices (e.g. light pen), minimize age differences and enable quick transfer to the non-preferred hand. This study investigates whether speech recognition may also reduce age-related declines and enhance performance of older adults in target selection tasks. Twenty-four participants ages 20–26 (M = 21.7), twenty-four participants ages 44-55 (M = 48.9), and twenty-four participants ages 65–78 (M = 70.4) were asked to select a specified target using either a light pen or speech recognition software (IBM's ViaVoice). Results revealed no age effects for type of device, but response times for target acquisition were approximately 2178 ms longer for speech recognition than the direct positioning device, and preference ratings were higher using speech as input versus the lightpen. Implications are discussed.

[1]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[2]  Joseph Sharit,et al.  Aging, Motor Control, and the Performance of Computer Mouse Tasks , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[3]  A. D. Fisk,et al.  Age-related differences in movement control: adjusting submovement structure to optimize performance. , 1997, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[4]  T. Salthouse.  What do adult age differences in the Digit Symbol Substitution Test reflect? , 1992, Journal of gerontology.

[5]  W. S. Brown,et al.  Age-related differences in speech variability among women. , 1994, Journal of communication disorders.

[6]  Arthur D. Fisk,et al.  Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches , 2004 .

[7]  P. F. Adams,et al.  Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1996. , 1999, Vital and health statistics. Series 10, Data from the National Health Survey.

[8]  Neil Charness,et al.  Input devices for web browsing: age and hand effects , 2005, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[9]  N. Charness,et al.  Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings From the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) , 2006 .

[10]  T. Salthouse,et al.  Memory and age differences in spatial manipulation ability. , 1989, Psychology and aging.

[11]  Neil Charness,et al.  Light Pen Use and Practice Minimize Age and Hand Performance Differences in Pointing Tasks , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[12]  Helen Mitchard,et al.  Experimental Comparisons of Data Entry by Automated Speech Recognition, Keyboard, and Mouse , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[13]  K. Burk,et al.  Perceptual and acoustic correlates of aging in the speech of males. , 1974, Journal of communication disorders.

[14]  Joseph Sharit,et al.  Is Speech Recognition Technology Robust for Older Populations? , 1999 .

[15]  V. Benson,et al.  Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1995. , 1998, Vital and health statistics. Series 10, Data from the National Health Survey.

[16]  T. Salthouse,et al.  Adult age and the speed-accuracy trade-off. , 1979, Ergonomics.