Effects of sensorimotor transformations with graphical input devices

The impact of sensorimotor transformations with graphical input devices is surveyed with regard to action control. Recent evidence lets us assume that the distal action effect (the moving cursor) rather than the proximal action effect (the moving hand) determines the efficiency of tool use. In Experiment 1, different gains were explored with a touchpad and a mini-joystick. In correspondence with our assumptions the results revealed evidence that Fitts' law holds for distal action–effect movements, but less for proximal action–effect movements. Most importantly, this was not only true for the touchpad but also for the mini-joystick. We further found a more efficient use of the touchpad in comparison to the mini-joystick when a high gain was used. In Experiment 2, the dominance of the action effect on motor control was confirmed in an experiment with a digitiser tablet. The tablet amplitude was held constant, but again, movement times followed the perceived index of difficulty on the display. It is concluded that Fitts' law did not rely on the movements of the motor system, but on the distal action effects on the display (changes in visual space). Distal action–effect control plays an important role in understanding the constraints of the acquisition and application of tool transformations.

[1]  M L Lin,et al.  Gain effects on performance using a head-controlled computer input device. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[2]  Martina Ziefle,et al.  Psychomotor Efficiency in Users of Notebook Input Devices: Confirmation and Restrictions of Fitts' Law as an Evaluative Tool for User-Friendly Design , 2004 .

[3]  Joel S. Greenstein,et al.  Optimizing the Touch Tablet: The Effects of Control-Display Gain and Method of Cursor Control , 1986 .

[4]  W. Prinz,et al.  Programming tool-use actions. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  M. Ziessler,et al.  Cognitive control of action: The role of action effects , 2004, Psychological research.

[6]  Evan D. Graham,et al.  Virtual Pointing on a Computer Display: Non-Linear Control-Display Mappings , 1996, Graphics Interface.

[7]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects? , 2008 .

[8]  C Sutter,et al.  Notebook input devices put to the age test: the usability of trackpoint and touchpad for middle-aged adults , 2007, Ergonomics.

[9]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  Fitts's Law Holds for Action Perception , 2007, Psychological science.

[10]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  Effects of output display and control - display gain on human performance in interactive systems , 1994, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[11]  Michael Bohan,et al.  KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF MOUSE CURSOR POSITIONING AS A FUNCTION OF MOVEMENT SCALE AND JOINT SET , 2003 .

[12]  J. Müsseler,et al.  Perceiving one’s own movements when using a tool , 2009, Consciousness and Cognition.

[13]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. , 1970, Psychological review.

[14]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Spatial Compatibility Effects With Tool Use , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[15]  D. Chaffin,et al.  An investigation of fitts' law using a wide range of movement amplitudes. , 1976, Journal of motor behavior.

[16]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Compensation for and adaptation to changes in the environment , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework of perception and action , 2001 .

[18]  Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals ( VDTs ) — Part 11 : Guidance on usability , 1998 .

[19]  Martina Ziefle,et al.  Psychomotor Performance of Input Device Users and Optimized Cursor Control , 2006 .

[20]  Sarah A. Douglas,et al.  The ergonomics of computer pointing devices , 1997, Advanced perspectives in applied computing.

[21]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Powermice and user performance , 1990, CHI '90.

[22]  Renaud Blanch,et al.  Semantic pointing: improving target acquisition with control-display ratio adaptation , 2004, CHI.

[23]  Joel S. Greenstein,et al.  Is Display/Control Gain a Useful Metric for Optimizing an Interface? , 1990 .

[24]  Jochen Müsseler,et al.  User Specific Design of Interfaces and Interaction Techniques: What Do Older Computer Users Need? , 2007, HCI.

[25]  Brian W. Epps Comparison of Six Cursor Control Devices Based on Fitts' Law Models , 1986 .

[26]  I.,et al.  Fitts' Law as a Research and Design Tool in Human-Computer Interaction , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[27]  Daniel Vogel,et al.  The Impact of Control-Display Gain on User Performance in Pointing Tasks , 2008, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[28]  Henning Brau,et al.  Anticipatory movement compatibility for virtual reality interaction devices , 2010, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[29]  P. Fitts The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[30]  C Sutter,et al.  Sensumotor transformation of input devices and the impact on practice and task difficulty , 2007, Ergonomics.

[31]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Scale effects in steering law tasks , 2001, CHI.

[32]  D. Spalding The Principles of Psychology , 1873, Nature.

[33]  Ulrich Tränkle,et al.  Factors influencing speed and precision of cursor positioning using a mouse , 1991 .