Cursor Orientation and Computer Screen Positioning Movements

Abstract

Implicit directional cues in arrowhead cursors could influence positioning of a cursor on the screen of the computer. Performance during cursor placement may benefit from compatibilities between cursor orientation and direction of movement. Arrowheads could also elicit illusory processes that may affect judgments of (a) the distances on the screen or (b) the location of the point of the arrowhead. To address the impact of the cursor's orientation on its positioning, we had 12 participants move cursors (crosshairs, leftward, or rightward arrow) leftward or rightward to targets (near, far) on a computer screen. Movement amplitude was more important than cursor orientation for initiation of rightward movements, whereas cursor orientation affected the duration of leftward movements and movements to farther targets. Arrowhead orientation contributed to the greater overshooting of far targets. There was little evidence that compatibility of orientation and direction of movement assisted response initiation or execution, and there was little indication that arrowhead cursors led to illusory effects that influenced cursor placement. Arrowhead cursors can provide irrelevant stimulus dimensions that distract users. This work can be applied to the design of cursors in graphical user interfaces. The use of orientation-neutral cursors or cursors whose stimulus dimensions are more relevant is recommended.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baber, C. (1997). Beyond the desktop: Designing and using interaction devices. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Bradshaw, J. L. , Bradshaw, J. A. , & Nettleton, N. C. (1990). Abduction, adduction, and hand differences in simple and serial movements. Neuropsychologia, 28, 917-931.

Bryden, M. P. (1988). Cerebral specialisation: Clinical and experimental assessment. In F. Boller , & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 1, pp. 143-159). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Daprati, E. , & Gentilucci, M. (1997). Grasping an illusion. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1577-1582.

Day, R. H. , & Knuth, H. (1981). The contributions of F. C. Müler-Lyer. Perception, 10, 126-146.

Dix, A. J. , Finlay, J. E. , Abowd, G. D. , & Beale, R. (1998). Human computer interaction. London: Prentice-Hall.

Fitts, P. M. , & Peterson, J. R. (1964). Information capacity of discrete motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 103-112.

Fogleman, M. , & Brogmus, G. (1995). Computer mouse use and cumulative trauma disorders of the upper extremities. Ergonomics, 38, 2465-2475.

Gravetter, F. J. , & Wallnau, L. B. (2000). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

10.

Greene, E. , & Nelson, B. (1997). Evaluating Müler-Lyer effects using single fin-set configurations. Perception and Psychophysics, 59, 293-312.

11.

Kantowitz, B. H. , Triggs, T. J. , & Barnes, V. E. (1990). Stimulusresponse compatibility and human factors. In R. W. Proctor , & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 365-388). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

12.

MacKenzie, I. S. (1992). Fitts' law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 91-139.

13.

Maraj, B. K. V. , Elliott, D. , Lyons, J. , Roy, E. A. , & Winchester, T. (1998). Influence of spatial mapping on manual aiming asymmetries. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 967-975.

14.

Morgan, M. , Bradshaw, J. L. , Phillips, J. G. , Mattingley, J. B. , Iansek, R. , & Bradshaw, J. A. (1994). Effects of hand and age upon abductive and adductive movements: A kinematic analysis. Brain and Cognition, 25, 194-206.

15.

Morgan, M. J. , & Glennerster, A. (1991). Efficiency of locating centres of dot-clusters by human observers. Vision Research, 31, 2075-2083.

16.

Morgan, M. J. , Hole, G. J. , & Glennerster, A. (1990). Biases and sensitivities in geometrical illusions. Vision Research, 30, 1793-1810.

17.

Proctor, R. W. , Van Zandt, T. , Lu, C.-H. , & Weeks, D. J. (1993). Stimulus-response compatibility for moving stimuli: Perception of affordances or directional coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 81-91.

18.

Spijkers, W. A. C. (1990). The relation between response-specificity, S-R compatibility, foreperiod duration and muscle-tension in a target aiming task. Acta Psychologica, 75, 261-277.

19.

Weeks, D. J. , & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355-366.

20.

Welford, A. T. (1980). Reaction times. London: Academic.

21.

Worringham, C. J. , & Beringer, D. B. (1998). Directional stimulusresponse compatibility: A test of three alternative principles. Ergonomics, 41, 864-880.