Literature DB >> 22563232

Using Direct and Indirect Input Devices: Attention Demands and Age-Related Differences.

Anne Collins McLaughlin1, Wendy A Rogers, Arthur D Fisk.   

Abstract

Researchers have suggested that attention is a key moderating variable predicting performance with an input device [e.g., Greenstein & Arnaut, 1988] without directly assessing the attention demands of devices We hypothesized that the attentional demands of input devices would be intricately linked to whether the device matched the input requirements of the on-screen task. Further, matching task and device should be more important for attentionally reduced groups, such as older adults. Younger and older adults used either a direct (touch screen) or indirect (rotary encoder) input device to perform matched or mismatched input tasks under a spectrum of attention allocation conditions. Input devices required attention - more so for older adults, especially in a mismatch situation. In addition, task performance was influenced by the mach between task demands and input device characteristics. Though both groups benefited from a match between input device and task input requirements, older adults benefited more and this benefit increased as less attention was available. We offer an a priori method to choose an input device for a task by considering the overlap between device attributes and input requirements. These data have implications for design decisions concerning input device selection across age groups and task contexts.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 22563232      PMCID: PMC3342758          DOI: 10.1145/1502800.1502802

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact        ISSN: 1073-0516            Impact factor:   2.351


  15 in total

1.  Validation of reaction time in continuous performance tasks as an index of attention by electrophysiological measures.

Authors:  I Reinvang
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.475

2.  Light pen use and practice minimize age and hand performance differences in pointing tasks.

Authors:  Neil Charness; Patricia Holley; Jeffrey Feddon; Tiffany Jastrzembski
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.888

3.  Touch a screen or turn a knob: choosing the best device for the job.

Authors:  Wendy A Rogers; Arthur D Fisk; Anne Collins McLaughlin; Richard Pak
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.888

4.  Usability of touch-panel interfaces for older adults.

Authors:  Atsuo Murata; Hirokazu Iwase
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.888

5.  Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload.

Authors:  P A Hancock
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.778

6.  Age-related differences in movement control: adjusting submovement structure to optimize performance.

Authors:  N Walker; D A Philbin; A D Fisk
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.077

7.  Age differences in divided attention in a simulated driving task.

Authors:  R W Ponds; W H Brouwer; P C van Wolffelaar
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1988-11

8.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory.

Authors:  R C Oldfield
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1971-03       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Effects of aging, skill modification, and demand alternation on multiple-task performance.

Authors:  J E Korteling
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 2.888

10.  Processing demands during mental operations.

Authors:  B Kerr
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1973-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.