Advertisement

Age-Differentiated Analysis of the Hand Proximity Effect by Means of Eye-Tracking

  • Christina BröhlEmail author
  • Sabine Theis
  • Matthias Wille
  • Peter Rasche
  • Alexander Mertens
  • Christopher M. Schlick
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9754)

Abstract

Research focusing on the position of the hands with regard to visual stimuli has recently received a great deal of attention. One of the main findings is that stimuli that are close to the hands are perceived and processed more precisely than those that are more distant. In this study, the effect of hand proximity was studied using a visual search task and analyzed regarding fixation durations. The hands were placed in varying positions: directly at the screen, on the table and on the lap. As performance in information processing is highly dependent on the subject’s age, effects were analyzed in an age-differentiated manner. Results showed a significant effect regarding hand positions moderated by age: Fixation durations were shorter for positions of the hands at the screen and longer for positions away from the screen in the younger age group. In the older age group the effect was vice versa, fixation durations were longer for the position of the hand at the screen and shorter for positions away from the screen.

Keywords

Peripersonal space Hand proximity Nearby hands Ergonomic design Age-robust design Visual search Eye-tracking 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This publication is part of the research project “TECH4AGE”, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Grant No. 16SV7111) supervised by the VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH.

References

  1. 1.
    Reed, C.L., Grubb, J.D., Steele, C.: Hands up: attentional prioritization of space near the hand. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 32(1), 166 (2006). doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davoli, C.C., Brockmole, J.R., Goujon, A.: A bias to detail: how hand position modulates visual learning and visual memory. Mem. Cognit. 40(3), 352 (2012). doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0147-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrams, R.A., Davoli, C.C., Du, F., Knapp III, W.H., Paull, D.: Altered Vision Near Hands. Cognition 107(3), 1035 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weidler, B.J., Abrams, R.A.: Enhanced cognitive control near the hands. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 21(2), 462 (2014). doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0514-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schendel, K., Robertson, L.C.: Reaching out to see: arm position can attenuate human visual loss. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16(6), 935 (2004). doi: 10.1162/0898929041502698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davoli, C.C., Du, F., Montana, J., Garverick, S., Abrams, R.A.: When meaning matters, look but don’t touch: the effects of posture on reading. Mem. Cognit. 38(5), 555 (2010). doi: 10.3758/MC.38.5.555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Le Bigot, N., Jaschinski, W.: Hand position at computer screens. In: Dittmar, A., Forbrig, P. (eds.) The 29th Annual European Conference, p. 85 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, L.E., Morrissey, B.F., Goodale, M.A.: Vision in the palm of your hand. Neuropsychologia 47(6), 1621 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Festman, Y., Adam, J.J., Pratt, J., Fischer, M.H.: Both hand position and movement direction modulate visual attention. Front. Psychol. 4, 657 (2013). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reed, C.L., Betz, R., Garza, J.P., Roberts, R.J.: Grab it! Biased attention in functional hand and tool space. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72(1), 236 (2010). doi: 10.3758/APP.72.1.236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rizzolatti, G., Matelli, M., Pavesi, G.: Deficits in attention and movement following the removal of postarcuate (area 6) and prearcuate (area 8) cortex in macaque monkeys. Brain 106(3), 655 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gross, C.G., Bender, D.B., Rocha-Miranda, C.E.: Visual receptive fields of neurons in inferotemporal cortex of the monkey. Science 166(3910), 1303 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cosman, J.D., Vecera, S.P.: Attention affects visual perceptual processing near the hand. Psychol. Sci. 21(9), 1254 (2010). doi: 10.1177/0956797610380697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bloesch, E.K., Davoli, C.C., Abrams, R.A.: Age-related changes in attentional reference frames for peripersonal space. Psychol. Sci. 24(4), 557 (2013). doi: 10.1177/0956797612457385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tipper, S.P., Lortie, C., Baylis, G.C.: Selective reaching, Evidence for action-centered attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 18(4), 891 (1992). doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldberg, J.H., Kotval, X.P.: Computer interface evaluation using eye movements, Methods and constructs. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 24(6), 631 (1999). doi: 10.1016/S0169-8141(98)00068-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fukuda, R., Bubb, H.: Eye tracking study on web-use: comparison between younger and elderly users in case of search task with electronic timetable service. PsychNology J. 2003(3), 202 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hill, R.L., Dickinson, A., Arnott, J.L., Gregor, P., McIver, L.: Older web users’ eye movements. In: Tan, D., Fitzpatrick, G., Gutwin, C., Begole, B., Kellogg, W.A. (eds.) The 2011 Annual Conference. p. 1151 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Veiel, L.L., Storandt, M., Abrams, R.A.: Visual search for change in older adults. Psychol. Aging 21(4), 754 (2006). doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.4.754 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maltz, M., Shinar, D.: Eye Movements of Younger and Older Drivers. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 41(1), 15 (1999). doi: 10.1518/001872099779577282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bröhl, C., Antons, C., Bützler, J., Schlick, C.: Age-differentiated analysis of the hand proximity effect in a visual search paradigm. In: Lindgaard, G., Moore, D. (eds.) Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, 9-14 August 2015Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rayner, K.: Eye movements in reading and information processing, 20 years of research. Psychol. Bull. 124(3), 372 (1998). doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lumley, T., Diehr, P., Emerson, S., Chen, L.: The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu. Rev. Public Health 23(1), 151 (2002). doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norman, G.: Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 15(5), 625 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, p. xxi, 567. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988). ISBN 0805802835zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Bröhl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sabine Theis
    • 1
  • Matthias Wille
    • 1
  • Peter Rasche
    • 1
  • Alexander Mertens
    • 1
  • Christopher M. Schlick
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Industrial Engineering and ErgonomicsRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations