Touchscreen Pointing and Swiping: The Effect of Background Cues and Target Visibility.

By assessing the precision of gestural interactions with touchscreen targets, the authors investigate how the type of gesture, target location, and scene visibility impact movement endpoints. Participants made visually and memory-guided pointing and swiping gestures with a stylus to targets located in a semicircle. Specific differences in aiming errors were identified between swiping and pointing. In particular, participants overshot the target more when swiping than when pointing and swiping endpoints showed a stronger bias toward the oblique than pointing gestures. As expected, the authors also found specific differences between conditions with and without delays. Overall, the authors observed an influence on movement execution from each of the three parameters studied and uncovered that the information used to guide movement appears to be gesture specific.

[1]  S. Appelle.  Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: the "oblique effect" in man and animals. , 1972, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Understanding performance in touch selections: Tap, drag and radial pointing drag with finger, stylus and mouse , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  R. Masters,et al.  Left, right, left, right, eyes to the front! Müller-Lyer bias in grasping is not a function of hand used, hand preferred or visual hemifield, but foveation does matter , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  Matthew Heath,et al.  Background visual cues and memory-guided reaching. , 2004, Human movement science.

[5]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[6]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The effects of landmarks on the performance of delayed and real-time pointing movements , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  A comparison of input devices in element pointing and dragging tasks , 1991, CHI.

[8]  I. Evdokimidis,et al.  Systematic errors of planar arm movements provide evidence for space categorization effects and interaction of multiple frames of reference , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  P. Lánský,et al.  Is the 45 degrees-oblique a third dominant direction? , 1989, Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis.

[10]  Fred W. Mast,et al.  The neural basis of the egocentric and allocentric spatial frame of reference , 2007, Brain Research.

[11]  Les G. Carlton,et al.  Chapter 1 Visual Processing Time and the Control of Movement , 1992 .

[12]  Masaaki Kurosu.  Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Contexts , 2017, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[13]  Les G. Carlton,et al.  Visual Information: The Control of Aiming Movements , 1981 .

[14]  Paul Kabbash,et al.  Human performance using computer input devices in the preferred and non-preferred hands , 1993, INTERCHI.

[15]  Matthew Heath,et al.  The proximity of visual landmarks impacts reaching performance. , 2007, Spatial vision.

[16]  N. Smyrnis,et al.  "Motor oblique effect": perceptual direction discrimination and pointing to memorized visual targets share the same preference for cardinal orientations. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  Ivan Toni,et al.  Eye position tunes the contribution of allocentric and egocentric information to target localization in human goal-directed arm movements , 1997, Neuroscience Letters.

[18]  M. Goodale,et al.  The role of online visual feedback for the control of target-directed and allocentric hand movements. , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  Thomas Schmidt,et al.  Immediate spatial distortions of pointing movements induced by visual landmarks , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Interaction of cognitive and sensorimotor maps of visual space , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  Matthew Heath,et al.  Can a visual representation support the online control of memory-dependent reaching? Evident from a variable spatial mapping paradigm. , 2003, Motor control.

[22]  A. Berthoz,et al.  The neural basis of egocentric and allocentric coding of space in humans: a functional magnetic resonance study , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  Yves Rossetti,et al.  Implicit Short-Lived Motor Representations of Space in Brain Damaged and Healthy Subjects , 1998, Consciousness and Cognition.

[24]  Laurette Hay,et al.  Response delay and spatial representation in pointing movements , 2006, Neuroscience Letters.

[25]  W. Helsen,et al.  A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  Kenneth F. Valyear,et al.  Human parietal cortex in action , 2006, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[27]  Matthew Heath,et al.  The effect of a pictorial illusion on closed-loop and open-loop prehension , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[28]  D. Elliott,et al.  Visual regulation of manual aiming , 1993 .