Effects of Visual Stimulus on Response Behavior of Control-on-Display Interface

Control-on-display interfaces enable a direct and intuitive manipulation by inducing control directly through the visual stimuli, thereby reducing information-processing stages and improving feed-forward property. The visual information displayed on such devices act not only as visual stimuli but also as controllers. This study investigated the effect of visual stimulus on users’ response behavior while using touch screen. Three characteristics of visual stimulus were investigated: (a) shape of visual stimulus requesting simple tap reaction, (b) contrast between figure and background, and (c) existence of precue on upcoming event. The effects of the selected factors were tested using the response time and the response accuracy measured by 2D deviation vectors. A full factorial experimental design, followed by a multivariate analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons showed that the shift of the center of area from the circumcenter of the stimuli affects the location where fingertip touched, the different background contrast affects both the time and accuracy, and it is confirmed that precue speeds up the response times and improves accuracy in control-on-display interaction.

[1]  Sebastian Merchel,et al.  Audiotactile Feedback Design for Touch Screens , 2009, HAID.

[2]  J. A. Pickering Touch-Sensitive Screens: The Technologies and Their Application , 1986, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[3]  Weina Qu,et al.  An Empirical Study on the Smallest Comfortable Button/Icon Size on Touch Screen , 2007, HCI.

[4]  Heinrich Hußmann,et al.  Evaluation of User Interface Design and Input Methods for Applications on Mobile Touch Screen Devices , 2009, INTERACT.

[5]  A. Jensen,et al.  Reaction Time, Movement Time, and Intelligence , 1979 .

[6]  Beom Suk Jin,et al.  A Study of Pointing Performance of Elderly Users on Smartphones , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[7]  Brenda K. Laurel,et al.  Interface as Mimesis , 1986 .

[8]  Benjamin B. Bederson,et al.  Target size study for one-handed thumb use on small touchscreen devices , 2006, Mobile HCI.

[9]  Ian J. Deary,et al.  Reaction times and intelligence differences: A population-based cohort study , 2001 .

[10]  S. Chieffi,et al.  Visual illusion and action , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[11]  Michael A. Khan,et al.  The influence of attention and response factors upon the spatial precue effect , 1994 .

[12]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  D. Carey,et al.  Do action systems resist visual illusions? , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction , 1988 .

[15]  Scott Glover,et al.  Visual illusions affect planning but not control , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  Sung H. Han,et al.  Touch key design for one-handed thumb interaction with a mobile phone: Effects of touch key size and touch key location , 2010 .

[17]  Otmar Bock,et al.  The mechanisms of movement preparation: a precuing study , 2000, Behavioural Brain Research.

[18]  Patricia A. Urban,et al.  Coping with Diversity , 2003 .

[19]  Tiiu Koskela,et al.  Usability of MobiVR Concept: Towards Large Virtual Touch Screen for Mobile Devices , 2004, Mobile HCI.

[20]  Dongsong Zhang,et al.  Challenges, Methodologies, and Issues in the Usability Testing of Mobile Applications , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[21]  Lene Nielsen,et al.  Usability and internationalization , 2007 .

[22]  Steve Hansen,et al.  Visual illusions affect both movement planning and on-line control: a multiple cue position on bias and goal-directed action. , 2005, Human movement science.

[23]  Timothy C. Bates,et al.  IMPROVED REACTION TIME METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING SPEED, AND INTELLIGENCE , 1998 .

[24]  Liana M. Kiff,et al.  Touch Screen User Interfaces for Older Adults: Button Size and Spacing , 2007, HCI.

[25]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[26]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  Direct Manipulation , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[27]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Direct Manipulation Interfaces , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[28]  J. Kelso,et al.  Are movements prepared in parts? Not under compatible (naturalized) conditions. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[29]  M. Cheal,et al.  Importance of precue location in directing attention. , 1991, Acta psychologica.

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

[31]  Juan Pablo Hourcade,et al.  Evaluating one handed thumb tapping on mobile touchscreen devices , 2008, Graphics Interface.

[32]  Andrew Sears,et al.  Data Entry for Mobile Devices Using Soft Keyboards: Understanding the Effects of Keyboard Size and User Tasks , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  Donghun Lee,et al.  Effect of key size and activation area on the performance of a regional error correction method in a touch-screen QWERTY keyboard , 2009 .

[34]  Stefanie I. Becker,et al.  The stage of priming: Are intertrial repetition effects attentional or decisional? , 2008, Vision Research.

[35]  B. Dosher,et al.  Mechanisms of perceptual attention in precuing of location , 2000, Vision Research.

[36]  A. Neubauer,et al.  Intelligence and reaction times in the Hick, Sternberg and Posner paradigms , 1997 .

[37]  J. Schellekens,et al.  The influence of movement amplitude on precue-processing☆ , 1986 .