Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 85–95 | Cite as

Movement time for motion-impaired users assisted by force-feedback: effects of movement amplitude, target width, and gravity well width

  • Faustina Hwang
  • Simeon Keates
  • Patrick Langdon
  • P. John Clarkson
Long paper

Abstract

This paper presents a study investigating how the performance of motion-impaired computer users in “point and click” tasks varies with target distance (A), target width (W), and force-feedback gravity well width (GWW). Six motion-impaired users performed “point and click” tasks across a range of values for A, W, and GWW. Times were observed to increase with A, and to decrease with W. Times also improved with GWW, and, with the addition of a gravity well, a greater improvement was observed for smaller targets than for bigger ones. It was found that Fitts’ Law gave a good description of behaviour for each value of GWW, and that gravity wells reduced the effect of task difficulty on performance. A model based on Fitts’ Law is proposed, which incorporates the effect of GWW on movement time. The model accounts for 88.8% of the variance in the observed data.

Keywords

Fitts’ Law Motion-impaired Force-feedback Haptic 

References

  1. 1.
    Bravo PE, LeGare M, Cook AM, Hussey SM (1990) Application of Fitts’ law to arm movements aimed at targets in people with cerebral palsy. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference of the Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America. RESNA, Washington, DC, pp 21.3–21.4Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47:381–391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graham ED, MacKenzie CL (1996) Physical versus virtual pointing. In: Proceedings of CHI 1996. ACM, New York, pp 292–299Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hasser C, Goldenberg A, Martin K, Rosenberg L (1998) User performance in a GUI pointing task with a low-cost force feedback computer mouse. In: Proceedings of the ASME dynamic systems and control division. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 151–156Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO 9241-9:2000(E) (2000) Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices, International Organisation for Standardisation, February 15, 2000Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jagacinski RJ, Repperger DW, Moran MS, Ward SL, Glass B (1980) Fitts‘ Law and the microstructure of rapid discrete movements. J Exp Psychol: Human Percep Perform 6(2):309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson PW, Hewes J, Dropkin J, Rempel DM (1993) Office ergonomics: motion analysis of computer mouse usage. In: Proceedings of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Fairfax, VA, pp 12–13Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keates S, Langdon P, Clarkson J, Robinson P (2000) Investigating the use of force feedback for motion-impaired users. In: Proceedings of the 6th ERCIM workshop (Florence Italy), pp 207–212Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keates S, Hwang F, Langdon P, Clarkson J, Robinson P (2002) The use of cursor measures for motion-impaired computer users. Univ Access Inform Soc 2(1):18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ketcham C, Seidler R, Van Gemmert A, Stelmach G (2002) Age-related kinematic differences as influenced by task difficulty, target size, and movement amplitude. J Gerontol: Psychol Sci 57B(1):P54–P64Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    LoPresti E, Brienza DM, Angelo J, Gilbertson L, Sakai J (2000) Neck range of motion and use of computer head controls. In: Proceedings of ASSETS 2000 (Arlington, VA). ACM, New York, NY, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacKenzie IS (1992) Fitts’ law as a research and design tool in human–computer interaction. Hum–comput Interact 7:91–139Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    MacKenzie IS, Ware C (1993) Lag as a determinant of human performance in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of Interchi 1993, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 488–493Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacKenzie IS (1995) Movement time prediction in human–computer interfaces. In: Baecker RM, Buxton WAS, Grudin J, Greenberg S (eds.) Readings in human–computer interaction. Kaufmann, Los Altos, pp 483–493Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacKenzie IS, Kauppinen T, Silfverberg M (2001) Accuracy measures for evaluating computer pointing devices. In: Proceedings of CHI 2001 (Seattle WA). ACM, New York, pp 9–15Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MacKenzie IS, Soukoreff RW (2003) Card, English, and Burr (1978) – 25 years later. In: Extended Abstracts of CHI 2003 (Ft. Lauderdale, FL). ACM, New York, pp 760–761Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGuffin M, Balakrishnan R (2002) Acquisition of expanding targets. In: Proceedings of CHI 2002 (Minneapolis, MN). ACM, New York, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mithal AK, Douglas S (1996) Differences in movement microstructure of the mouse and finger-controlled isometric joystick. In: Proceedings of CHI 1996 (Vancouver, BC). ACM, New York, pp 300–307Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oakley I, McGee MR, Brewster SA, Gray PD (2000) Putting the feel in look and feel. In: Proceedings of CHI 2000 (The Hague). ACM, New York, pp 415–422Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rao RS, Seliktar R, Rahman T (2000) Evaluation of an isometric and a position joystick in a target acquisition task for individuals with cerebral palsy. IEEE T Rehabil Eng 8 (2):118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trewin S, Pain H (1999) Keyboard and mouse errors due to motor disabilities. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 50(2):109–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walker N, Meyer DE, Smelcer JB (1993) Spatial and temporal characteristics of rapid cursor-positioning movements with electromechanical mice in human-computer interaction. Hum Factors 35(3):431–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhai S, Conversy S, Beaudouin-Lafon M, Guiard Y (2003) Human on-line response to target expansion. In: Proceedings of CHI 2003 (Fort Lauderdale, FL). ACM, New York, pp. 177–184Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faustina Hwang
    • 1
  • Simeon Keates
    • 2
  • Patrick Langdon
    • 1
  • P. John Clarkson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterHawthorneUSA

Personalised recommendations