Advertisement

Camera Mouse + ClickerAID: Dwell vs. Single-Muscle Click Actuation in Mouse-Replacement Interfaces

  • John MageeEmail author
  • Torsten Felzer
  • I. Scott MacKenzie
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9175)

Abstract

Point-and-click interface modalities are a pervasive method of interacting with graphical user interfaces. Users of mouse-replacement interfaces use alternative input devices to replace the mouse for pointing and clicking. We present a comparison of click actuation modalities with users of the Camera Mouse, a motion-tracking mouse interface. We compare dwell-time click generation against detecting a single intentional muscle contraction with an attached sensor (ClickerAID). A preliminary evaluation was conducted as well as an in-depth case study with a participant with the neuromuscular disease Friedreich’s Ataxia. The case study shows modest temporal differences among the test conditions in movement time and throughput, though the participant subjectively favored the ClickerAID interface.

Keywords

Human-computer interaction Mouse-replacement interfaces Camera mouse ClickerAID Dwelling Intentional muscle contractions Neuromuscular diseases Friedreich’s ataxia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by DFG grant FE 936/6-2 “EFFENDI – EFficient and Fast text ENtry for persons with motor Disabilities of neuromuscular orIgin”.

References

  1. 1.
    Betke, M., Gips, J., Fleming, P.: The camera mouse: visual tracking of body features to provide computer access for people with severe disabilities. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 10(1), 1–10 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Felzer, T., MacKenzie, I.S., Rinderknecht, S.: OnScreenDualScribe: a computer operation tool for users with a neuromuscular disease. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8009, pp. 474–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Felzer, T., Nordmann, R.: Evaluating the hands-free mouse control system: an initial case study. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds.) ICCHP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5105, pp. 1188–1195. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Felzer, T., Rinderknecht, S.: ClickerAID: a tool for efficient clicking using intentional muscle contractions. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2012), pp. 257–258. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacob, R.J.K.: What you look at is what you get: eye movement-based interaction techniques. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1990), pp. 11–18. ACM (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacKenzie, I.S.: Human-Computer Interaction: An Empirical Research Perspective. Elsevier, New Delhi (2013) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magee, J.J., Epstein, S., Missimer, E.S., Kwan, C., Betke, M.: Adaptive mouse-replacement interface control functions for users with disabilities. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) Universal Access in HCI, Part II, HCII 2011. LNCS, vol. 6766, pp. 332–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Magee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Torsten Felzer
    • 2
  • I. Scott MacKenzie
    • 3
  1. 1.Math and Computer Science DepartmentClark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Mechatronic SystemsTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations