The extent to which individual differences in fine motor abilities affect indoor safety and efficiency of human-wheelchair systems was examined.
Background:
To reduce the currently large number of indoor wheelchair accidents, assistance systems with a high level of automation were developed. It was proposed to adapt the wheelchair’s level of automation to the user’s ability to steer the device to avoid drawbacks of highly automated wheelchairs. The state of the art, however, lacks an empirical identification of those abilities.
Method:
A study with 23 participants is described. The participants drove through various sections of a course with a powered wheelchair. Repeatedly measured criteria were safety (numbers of collisions) and efficiency (times required for reaching goals). As covariates, the participants’ fine motor abilities were assessed.
Results:
A random coefficient modeling approach was conducted to analyze the data, which were available on two levels as course sections were nested within participants. The participants’ aiming, precision, and arm–hand speed contributed significantly to both criteria: Participants with lower fine motor abilities had more collisions and required more time for reaching goals.
Conclusion:
Adapting the wheelchair’s level of automation to these fine motor abilities can improve indoor safety and efficiency. In addition, the results highlight the need to further examine the impact of individual differences on the design of automation features for powered wheelchairs as well as other applications of automation.
Application:
The results facilitate the improvement of current wheelchair technology.
AckermanP. L. (1990). A correlational analysis of skill specificity: Learning, abilities, and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 883–901. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.5.883
2.
AckermanP. L.CiancoloA. T.BowenK. R. (1999). Improving selection for psychomotor skills in dentistry. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society annual meeting (Vol. 43, pp. 898–902). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. doi:10.1177/154193129904301102
3.
AkaikeH. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332. doi:10.1007/BF02294359
4.
BarcikowskiR. S. (1981). Statistical power with group mean as the unit of analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(3), 267–285. doi:10.2307/1164877
5.
BartoleinC.WagnerA.JippM.BadreddinE. (2007). Multilevel intention estimation for wheelchair control. In Proceedings of the European Control Conference 2007 (Vol. 1, pp. 5463–5470). Kos, Greece: European Union Control Association.
6.
BartoleinC.WagnerA.JippM.BadreddinE. (2008). Easing wheelchair control by gaze-based estimation of intended motion. In ChungM. J.MisraP. (Eds.) Proceedings of the IFAC World Congress (Vol. 17, pp. 9162–9167). New York, NY: International Federation of Accountants. doi:10.3182/20080706-5-KR-1001.01549
7.
BateniH.MakiB. E. (2005). Assistive devices for balance and mobility: Benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 134–145. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.04.023
8.
BellD.BorensteinJ.KorenY.JarosA. (1994). The navchair: An assistive navigation system for wheelchairs based upon mobile robot obstacle avoidance. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (pp. 2018–2022). New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ROBOT.1994 .351167
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
CalderC. J.KirbyL. (1990). Fatal wheelchair-related accidents in the United States. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 69, 184–190.
12.
ChaseJ.BaileyD. M. (1990). Evaluating the potential for powered mobility. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44(12), 76–79.
13.
DemeesterE.NuttinM.VanhooydonckD.Van BrusselH. (2003). A model-based, probabilistic framework for plan recognition in shared wheelchair control: Experiments and evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (Vol. 2, pp. 1456–1461). New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/IROS.2003.1248849
14.
DrowatzkyF. N.ZuccatoF. C. (1967). Interrelationship between selected measures of static and dynamic balance. Research Quarterly, 38(3), 509–510.
15.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42, 462–492. doi:10.1080/ 001401399185595
16.
FehrL.LangbeinW. E.SkaarS. B. (2000). Adequacy of power wheelchair control interfaces for persons with severe disabilities: A clinical survey. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 37, 353–360.
17.
FleishmanE. A. (1953). Test for psychomotor abilities by means of apparatus tests. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 241–262. doi:10.1037/h0059989
18.
FleishmanE. A.ParkerJ. F. (1962). Factors in the retention and relearning of perceptual-motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 215–226. doi:10.1037/h0041220
19.
GoskaR. E.AckermanP. L. (1996). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to transfer within training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 249–259. doi:10.1037/0022-0663 .88.2.249
20.
GuldnerL.MaderH. J.ZeltnerW. (1980). Veränderung der Handleistung durch motorisches Training: Ein empirischer Beitrag zum Händigkeitskonzept [Change of hand performance by motor training: An empirical contribution to the concept of handedness]. Archiv für Psychologie, 132, 189–206.
21.
HamsterW. (1980a). Die Motorische Leistungsserie MLS: Handanweisung [The Motor Performance Test MLS: Manual]. Mölding, Germany: Dr. G. Schuhfried.
22.
HamsterW. (1980b). Psychologisch-apparative Diagnostik sensumotorischer Funktionsstörungen nach Hirnverletzungen [Psychological-instrumental assessment of sensumotor functional disorders after brain damages] (22). Tübingen, Germany: Tagung Experimentell Arbeitender Psychologen.
23.
HollnagelE. (1993). Human reliability analysis: Context and control. London, UK: Academic Press.
24.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
JippM. (2007). Situation adaptation: Information acquisition, human behavior, and its determining abilities. Mannheim, Germany: Mannheim University Press.
26.
JippM.BartoleinC.BadreddinE. (2009a). Predictive validity of wheelchair driving behavior for fine motor abilities: Definition of input variables for an adaptive wheelchair system. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (Vol. 1, pp. 45–50). New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2009.5346347
27.
JippM.BartoleinC.BadreddinE. (2009b). Quantitative comparison of the joystick control mode and the two-switch control mode when steering a wheelchair. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (Vol. 53, pp. 625–629). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. doi:10 .1177/154193120905301009
28.
KeeleS. W.HawkinsH. L. (1982). Explorations of individual differences relevant to high level skill. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 3–23.
29.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.BolgerN. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In GilbertD.FiskeS.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 233–265). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
30.
KilkensO. J.PostM. W.DallmeijerA. J.SeelenH. A.van der WoudeL. H. (2003). Wheelchair skills test: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 17, 418–430. doi:10.1191/ 0269215503cr633oa
KrausP. H.KlotzP.FischerP. A.PrzuntekH. (1987). Erfassung des Morbus Parkinson mit apparativen Methoden [Assessment of Morbus Parkinson with instrumental methods]. In RiedererP.PrzuntekH. (Eds.), Morbus Parkinson symposium in Berlin (pp. 93–100). Vienna, Austria: Springer.
LankenauA.RöferT. (2000). Smart wheelchairs: State of the art in an emerging market. Künstliche Intelligenz, 14, 37–39.
35.
LaPlanteM. P.HendershotG. E.MossA. J. (1992). Assistive technology devices and home accessibility features: Prevalence, payment, need, and trends. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, 217, 1–12.
36.
LittellR. C.MillikenG. A.StroupW. W.WolfingerR. D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
37.
MeinelK.SchnabelG. (1976). Bewegungslehre: Abriß einer Theorie der Bewegung [Movement theory: Concept of a theory of movement]. Berlin, Germany: Volk und Wissen.
38.
MotomuraN. (1994). Motor performance in aphasia and ideomotor apraxia. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(2), 719–722.
39.
NeuwirthW.BeneschM. (2004). Motorische Leistungsserie (MLS). Handanweisung [Motor Performance Test (MPT). Manual]. Mölding, Germany: Dr. G. Schuhfried.
40.
NezlekJ. B.Schroeder-AbeM.SchuetzA. (2006). Multilevel analysis in psychological research: Advantages and potential of multilevel random coefficient modelling. Psychologische Rundschau, 57, 213–223. doi:10.1026/0033-3042.57.4.213
41.
NormanS.BillingsC. E.NadelD.PalmerE.WienerE. L.WoodsD. D. (1988). Aircraft automation philosophy (Tech. rep.). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
42.
PeughJ. L.EndersC. K. (2005). Using the SPSS mixed procedure to fit cross-sectional and longitudinal multilevel models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 717–741. doi:10.1177/0013164405278558
43.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (1986). A hierarchical model for studying school effects. Sociology of Education, 59, 1–17.
44.
RingendahlH. (2002). Factor structure, normative data and retest-reliability of a test of fine motor functions in patients with ideopathic Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 491–502. doi:10.1076/jcen.24.4.491.1031
45.
RobinsonJ. E.DeutschW. E.RogersJ. G. (1970). The field maintenance interface between human engineering and maintainability engineering. Human Factors, 12, 253–259.
46.
SamiraU.KirbyL. (1994). Nonfatal wheelchair-related accidents reported to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 73, 163–167.
47.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D.BillingsC. E. (1997). Automation surprises. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1926–1943). New York, NY: John Wiley.
48.
SchoppeK. J. (1974). The MLS-apparatus: A new apparatus to measure motor skills. Diagnostica, 20, 43–47.
49.
SturmW.BuessingA. (1985). Supplementary standardization and retest-reliability coefficients of the Motorische Leistungsserie (MLS) by Schoppe. Diagnostica, 31, 234–245.
50.
SwainA. D. (1990). Human reliability analysis: Need, status, trends, and limitations. Journal of Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 29, 301–313. doi:10.1016/0951-8320(90) 90013-D
51.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Pearson.
