The impact of gain change on perceiving one's own actions

Tool use often challenges the human motor system, especially when these tools require sensorimotor transformations. We report an experiment using a digitizer tablet, in which different gains are introduced between the hand movement (proximal effect) and the intended action effect presented on a display (distal effect). The question is how one’s own movements are perceived in this situation. With regard to an action-effect account movements are represented and controlled by anticipating the movement effects. As a consequence, participants should be less aware of their own hand movements. The reason for this is that what counts for a successful tool use is the representation of the distal effect, not the proximal effect. Our results supported this view. Potential application of this research includes the optimization of the HCI with the imperceptible gain method. It benefits from the human flexibility to compensate for and adapt to smaller biases without any costs.

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

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

[3]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[4]  J. Gordon,et al.  Learning a visuomotor transformation in a local area of work space produces directional biases in other areas. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Codes and their vicissitudes , 2001 .

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

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

[8]  Günther Knoblich,et al.  Deceiving oneself about being in control: conscious detection of changes in visuomotor coupling. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[10]  Jan Borchers,et al.  Selexels: a Conceptual Framework for Pointing Devices with Low Expressiveness , 2006 .

[11]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys, for text selection on a CRT , 1987 .

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

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

[14]  Tovi Grossman,et al.  The bubble cursor: enhancing target acquisition by dynamic resizing of the cursor's activation area , 2005, CHI.

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

[16]  D M Wolpert,et al.  Context estimation for sensorimotor control. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

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