Advertisement

Pointing and Visual Feedback for Spatial Interaction in Large-Screen Display Environments

  • Barry A. Po
  • Brian D. Fisher
  • Kellogg S. Booth
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2733)

Abstract

The two visual systems hypothesis in neuroscience suggests that pointing without visual feedback may be less affected by spatial visual illusions than cognitive interactions such as judged target location. Our study examined predictions of this theory for target localization on a large-screen display. We contrasted pointing interactions under varying levels of visual feedback with location judgments of targets that were surrounded by an offset frame. As predicted by the theory, the frame led to systematic errors in verbal report of target location but not in pointing without visual feedback for some participants. We also found that pointing with visual feedback produced a similar level of error as location judgments, while temporally lagged visual feedback appeared to reduce these errors somewhat. This suggests that pointing without visual feedback may be a useful interaction technique in situations described by the two visual systems literature, especially with large-screen displays and immersive environments.

Keywords

Visual Feedback Target Position Spatial Interaction Interaction Technique Visual Illusion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balakrishnan, R., Hinckley K.: The Role of Kinesthetic Reference Frames in Two-Handed Input Performance. UIST 1999, ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (1999) 171–178Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bridgeman, B., Peery, S., Anand, S.: Interaction of Cognitive and Sensorimotor Maps of Visual Space. Perception and Psychophysics, Vol.59, No. 3 (1997) 456–469Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christian, K., Kules, B., Shneiderman, B., Youssef, A.: A Comparison of Voice Controlled and Mouse Controlled Web Browsing. ASSETS 2000, 72–79Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, C.: Visual Dominance and the Control of Action. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1998), 250–255Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitts, P. M.: The Information Capacity of the Human Motor System in Controlling Amplitude of Movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 47 (1956) 381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayne, S., Pendergast, M., Greenberg, S.: Gesturing Through Cursors: Implementing Multiple Pointers in Group Support Systems. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hinckley, K., Pausch, R., Proffitt, D.: Attention and Visual Feedback: The Bimanual Frame of Reference. 1997 ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics (1997) 121–126Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacob, R. J. K., Sibert, L. E., McFarlane, D. C., Mullen, M. P.: Integrality and Separability of Input Devices. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1994) 3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karl, L., Pettey, M., Shneiderman, B.: Speech Activated Versus Mouse-Activated Commands for Word Processing Applications: An Empirical Evaluation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4, October (1993) 667–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirstein, C., Muller, H.: Interaction with a Projection Screen Using a Camera-Tracked Laser Pointer. Proceedings of Multimedia Modeling (1998) 191–192Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milner, A. D., Goodale, M. A.: The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford Psychology Series, Vol. 2, (1995) New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Myers, B. A., Bhatnagar, R., Nichols, J., Peck, C. H., Kong, D., Miller, R., Long, A. C.: Interacting at a Distance: Measuring the Performance of Laser Pointers and Other Devices. Proceedings of CHI 2002, 33–40Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oh, J., Stuerzlinger, W.: Laser Pointers as Collaborative Pointing Devices. Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2002, 141–149Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olsen, D. R., Neilsen, T.: Laser Pointer Interaction. Proceedings of CHI 2002, 17–22Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oviatt, S., Cohen, P.: Multimodal Interfaces that Process What Comes Naturally. Communications of the ACM, March, Vol. 43, No. 3 (2001) 45–53Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poock, G. K.: Voice Recognition Boosts Command Terminal Throughput. Speech Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1981) 36–39Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poupyrev, I., Weghorst, S., Billinghurst, M., Ichikawa, T.: A Framework and Testbed for Studying Manipulation Techniques in Immersive VR. VRST 1997, ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (1997) 21–28Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roelofs, C.: Optische localisation [Optical localization]. Archiv für Augenheilkunde, 109 (1935) 395–415Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trevarthen, C. B.: Two Mechanisms of Vision in Primates. Psychologische Forschung, Vol. 31 (1968) 299–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, Y., MacKenzie, C. L., Summers, V. A., Booth, K. S.: The Structure of Object Transportation and Orientation in Human-Computer Interaction. Proceedings of CHI 1998, 312–319Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winograd, T., Guimbretiere, F.: Visual Instruments for an Interactive Mural. Abstracts, Proceedings of CHI 1999, 234–235Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolf, C. G., Rhyne, J. R.: Gesturing with Shared Drawing Tools. ACM Conference on Human Factors and Computing Systems (1993) 39–48Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry A. Po
    • 1
  • Brian D. Fisher
    • 1
  • Kellogg S. Booth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations