Aging and Input Devices: Voice Recognition Performance is Slower Yet More Acceptable than a Lightpen

Abstract

Microcomputers are ubiquitous to modern society, yet older adults consistently perform more poorly than younger counterparts using standard input devices (e.g. a mouse). Prior research has revealed that direct positioning devices (e.g. light pen), minimize age differences and enable quick transfer to the non-preferred hand. This study investigates whether speech recognition may also reduce age-related declines and enhance performance of older adults in target selection tasks. Twenty-four participants ages 20–26 (M = 21.7), twenty-four participants ages 44-55 (M = 48.9), and twenty-four participants ages 65–78 (M = 70.4) were asked to select a specified target using either a light pen or speech recognition software (IBM's ViaVoice). Results revealed no age effects for type of device, but response times for target acquisition were approximately 2178 ms longer for speech recognition than the direct positioning device, and preference ratings were higher using speech as input versus the lightpen. Implications are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benson

Marano

M. A.

(1998). Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1995. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10 (199), pp. 79–80.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_199acc.pdf, accessed 4/21/05.

Card

S. K.

Moran

T. P.

Newell

(1983). The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Charness

Holley

Feddon

Jastrzembski

, (2004). Lightpen use and practice minimize age and hand performance differences in pointing tasks. Human Factors, 46 (3), 373–384.

Czaja

S. J.

Charness

Fisk

A. D.

Hertzog

Nair

S. N.

Rogers

W. A.

Sharit

(submitted). Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE).

Fisk

A. D.

Rogers

W. A.

Charness

Czaja

S. J.

Sharit

(2004). Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Fox

(2004). Older Americans and the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project, March 25, 2004. Available from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Seniors_Online_2004.pdf, accessed 6/29/04.

Jastrzembski

Charness

Holley

Feddon

(in press, 2004b). Input devices for web browsing: Age and hand effects. Universal Access in the Information Society.

Kalasky

M. A.

Czaja

S. J.

Sharit

Nair

S. N.

(1999). Is speech technology robust for older populations?. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43, 123–128.

10.

Mitchard

Winkles

(2002). Experimental comparisons of data entry by automated speech recognition, keyboard, and mouse. Human Factors, 44, 198–209.

11.

Morris

R. J.

Brown

W. S.

(1994). Agerelated differences in speech variability among women. Journal of Communication Disorders, 27, 49–64.

12.

Ryan

W. J.

Burk

K. W.

(1974). Perceptual and acoustic correlates of aging in the speech of males. Journal of Communication Disorders, 7, 181–192.

13.

Salthouse

T. A.

(1979). Adult age and the speed-accuracy trade-off. Ergonomics, 22(7), 811–821.

14.

Salthouse

T. A.

(1992). What do adult age differences in the digit symbol substitution test reflect?. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 47, P121–128.

15.

Salthouse

T. A.

Mitchell

Palmon

(1989). Memory and age differences in spatial manipulation ability. Psychology and Aging, 4, 480–486.

16.

Smith

M. W.

Sharit

Czaja

S. J.

(1999). Aging, motor control, and the performance of computer mouse tasks. Human Factors, 41, 389–396.

17.

Walker

Philbin

Fisk

(1997). Age-related differences in movement control: Adjusting submovement structure to optimize performance. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 52B, P40–P52.