Efficacy of three head-pointing devices for a mouse emulation task.

Today, there are three competing technologies (exemplified by five products) to provide head-pointing mouse emulation. Since the manufacturers of each of these devices claims to provide similar functionality, it can be difficult for the clinician to decide which is the appropriate device for a client. The current study compares the functional performance of the three input technologies using three commercially available devices, the HeadMaster Plus, Tracker 2000, and Tracer. Each device was used to produce a series of drawings of similar complexity until the participants achieved a stable level of performance. The number of trials required to achieve mastery, the speed of drawing at mastery, and the accuracy of drawings was compared for the devices. In addition, the participants were asked about their subjective experience using the devices. Each of the three technologies was fastest for some participants, but the HeadMaster Plus produced the most consistently fast drawing times. Results indicated that although performance of the devices was similar, participant preference was driven by comfort more than by performance. The two fastest devices, the HeadMaster Plus and Tracer, both resulted in complaints regarding comfort, whereas the most comfortable device, the Tracker 2000, was preferred by participants although it was slightly slower in performance.