The Form of Augmented Force-Feedback Fields and the Efficiency and Satisfaction in Computer-Aided Pointing Tasks

Abstract

This study investigates operation efficiency and user satisfaction for spatial and temporal shapes of augmented force-feedback fields to be used with computer pointing devices in target acquisition tasks. In an experiment, three different force-field shapes at two different mean force levels were compared, with an electromechanical forcefeedback trackball as control device and with efficiency and user satisfaction as dependent variables. Efficiency was measured by the time required to perform a certain task, and user satisfaction was measured through a subjective rating procedure. Satisfaction results indicate that to a rough approximation, participants can be grouped into those who prefer high and those who prefer low force levels. Members of the former group were most satisfied with force fields with a gradual start and an abrupt ending. This force-field shape also proved to be the most efficient for both groups. When all participants were considered as a single group, none of the effects was found to be statistically significant. A gender effect was also found; in both preference groups women achieved significantly shorter task completion times than men. Actual or potential applications of this research include enabling computer interaction for people prone to repetitive strain injuries and the increment of efficiency and satisfaction in human-computer interaction in general.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akamatsu, M. , & Sato, S. (1994). A multi-modal mouse with tactile and force feedback. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 443–453.

Dennerlein, J. , & Yang, M. (2001). Haptic force-feedback devices for the office computer: Performance and musculoskeletal loading issues. Human Factors, 43, 278–286.

Engel, F. L. , Goossens, P. , & Haakma, R. (1994). Improved efficiency through I- and E-feedback: A trackball with contextual force feedback. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41, 949–974.

Göbel, M. , Luczak, H. , Springer, J. , Hedicke, V. , & Rötting, M. (1995). Tactile feedback applied to computer mice. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 1–24.

Goossens, P. (1992). Trackball with force feedback (IPO Report 882). Eindhoven, Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology.

Green, D. M. , & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.

Hasser, C. , Goldenberg, A. , Martin, K. , & Rosenberg, L. (1998). User performance in a GUI pointing task with low-cost force feedback computer mouse. In Proceedings of the ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division (pp. 151–156). New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Keuning, H. (2003). Augmented force feedback to facilitate target acquisition in human-computer interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

Keuning, H. , & Houtsma, A. J. M. (2000). Cursor trajectory analysis. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Haptic Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 69–72). Berlin: Springer.

10.

Keuning, H. , Van Galen, G. P. , & Houtsma, A. J. M. (2005). The role of size of an augmented force field in computer-aided target acquisition. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 219–232.

11.

Keyson, D. V. (1996). Touch in user interface navigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

12.

Keyson, D. V. , & Tang, H. (1995). TacTool: A tactile rapid prototyping tool for visual interfaces. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 67–74). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

13.

Leenders, G. (1994). Tactile fields and target acquisition in the user interface. Unpublished master's thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

14.

McGuffin, M. , & Balakrishnan, R. (2002). Acquisition of expanding targets. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 57-64). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.

15.

Shneiderman, B. (1983). Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. IEEE Computer, 16, 57–69.

16.

Spence, C. , & Driver, J. (1997). Cross-modal links in attention between audition, vision, and touch: Implications for interface design. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 1, 351–373.

17.

Van Galen, G. , Müller, M. , Meulenbroek, R. , & Van Gemmert, A. (2002). Forearm EMG response activity during motor performance in individuals prone to increased stress reactivity. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41, 406–419.

18.

Vogels, I. M. L. C. (2004). Detection of temporal delays in visualhaptic interfaces. Human Factors, 46, 118–134.

19.

Welch, R. , & Warren, D. (1986). Intersensory interaction. In K. Boff , L. Kaufman , & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 25.1--25.36). New York: Wiley.

20.

Wickens, C. , Gordon, S. , & Liu, Y. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering. Reading: Addison-Wesley Educational.