Anne Collins McLaughlin
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Researchers have suggested that attention is a key moderating variable predicting performance with an input device [Greenstein and Arnaut 1988], although the attention demands of devices have not been directly investigated. We hypothesized that the attentional demands of input devices are intricately linked to whether the device matches 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 match 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. This data should affect design decisions concerning input device selection across age groups and task contexts.
- Albert, A. E. 1982. The effect of graphic input devices on performance in a cursor positioning task. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergonomics Soc. 26, 54--58.Google Scholar
- Bekker, M. M., Van Nes, F. L., and Juola, J. F. 1995. A comparison of mouse and speech input control of a text-annotation system. Behav. Inform. Technol. 14, 14--22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Card, S. K., MacKinlay, J. D., and Robertson, G. C. 1990. The design space of input devices. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 117--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Charness, N., Holley, P., Feddon, J., and Jastrzembski, T. 2005. Light pen use and practice minimize age and hand performance differences in pointing tasks. Human Factors 46, 373--384.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chipman, L. E., Bederson, B. B. and Golbeck, J. 2004. SlideBar: Analysis of a linear input device. Behav. Inform. Technol. 23, 1--9. Google ScholarDigital Library
- English, W. K., Engelbart, D. C., and Berman, M. L. 1967. Display-selection techniques for text manipulation. IEEE Trans. Hum. Factors Electron. 1, 5--15.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., and Sharit, J. 2004. Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
- Foley, J. D., Wallace, V. L., and Chan, P. 1984. The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 4, 13--48. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gokturk, M. and Siebert, J. L. 1999. An analysis of the index finger as a pointing device. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference. 286--287. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gopher, D. 1993. The skill of attention control: Acquisition and execution of attention strategies. In Attention and Performance XIV, D.E. Meyer and S. Kornblum Eds., MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, 299--322. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Greenstein, J. S., and Arnaut, L. Y. 1988. Input devices. In The Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, M. Helander Ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 495--516.Google Scholar
- Hancock, P. A. 1996. Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload. Ergonomics 39, 1146--1162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacob, R. J. K. 1996. Human-computer interaction: Input devices. ACM Comput. Surv. 28, 177--179. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacob, R. J. K., Sibert, L. E., McFarlane, D. C., and Mullen, M. P. 1994. Integrality and separability of input devices. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 1, 3--26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jastrzembski, T., Charness, N., Holley, P., and Feddon, J. 2005. Input devices for web browsing: age and hand effects. Universal Access Inform. Soc. J. 4, 39--45. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juul-Kristensen B., Laursen B., Pilegaard M., and Jensen B. R. 2004. Physical workload during use of speech recognition and traditional computer input devices. Ergonomics 47, 119--133.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karat, J., Mcdonald, J. E., and Anderson, M. P. 1986. A comparison of menu selection techniques: touch panel, mouse and keyboard. Int. J. Man-Machine Stud. 25, 73--88. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kerr, B. 1973. Processing demands during mental operations. Memory Cognition 1, 401--412.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Korteling, J. E. 1994. Effects of aging, skill modification, and demand alternation on multiple-task performance. Human Factors 36, 27--43.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. F., and Strayer, D. L. 1995. Training for attentional control in dual task settings: A comparison of young and old adults. J. Exper. Psych. Applied 1, 50--76.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Madden, D. J. 1986. Adult age differences in the attentional capacity demands of visual search. Cognitive Devel. 1, 335--363.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martin, T. A. and Allan, W. E. 1991. An evaluation of touch-screen input for a HyperCard based digit-span task.Behav. Resear. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 23, 253--255.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McDowd, J. M. and Shaw, R. J. 2000. Attention and aging: A functional perspective. In The Handbook of Aging and Cognition 2nd Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ, 221--292Google Scholar
- McLaughlin, A. C., Rogers, W. A., and Fisk, A. D. 2003. Effects of attentional demand on input device use in younger and older adults. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergonomics Soc. 25, 247--250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meyer, S., Cohen, O., and Nilsen, E. 1994. Device comparisons for goal-directed drawing tasks. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference, 251--252. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Murata, A. and Iwase, H. 2005. Usability of touch-panel interfaces for older adults. Human Factors 47, 766--776.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Navon, D. and Gopher, D. 1979. On the economy of the human-processing system. Psych. Rev. 86, 214--255.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Norman, D. A. and Bobrow, D. G. 1975. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psych. 7, 44--64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Oldfield, R. C. 1971. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9, 97--113.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Park, D. C., Smith, A. D., Dudley, W. N., and Lafronza, V. N. 1989. Effects of age and a divided attention task presented during encoding and retrieval on memory. J. Exper. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 15, 1185--1191.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pashler, H. and Johnston, J. C. 1998. Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In Attention, H. Pashler Ed., Psychology Press/Erlbaum. Hove, England, 155--189.Google Scholar
- Ponds, R. W., Brouwer, W. H., and Van Wolffelaar, P. C. 1988. Age differences in divided attention in a simulated driving task. J. Gerontology 43, 151--156.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Posner, M. I. 1978. Chronometric Explorations of Mind. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
- Reinvang, I. 1998. Validation of reaction time in continuous performance tasks as an index of attention by electro-physiological measures. J. Clinical Exper. Neuropsych. 20, 885--897.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rogers, W. A. and Fisk, A. D. 2001. Understanding the role of attention in cognitive aging research. In Handbook of the Psychology of Aging 5th Ed., J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie Eds., Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 267--287.Google Scholar
- Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., McLaughlin, A. C., and Pak, R. 2005. Touch a screen or turn a knob: Choosing the best device for the job. Human Factors 47, 271--288.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rogers, W. A., Hertzog, C., and Fisk, A. D. 2002. An individual differences analysis of ability and strategy influences: Age-related differences in associative learning. J. Exper. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 26, 359--394.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scheneider, W. and Chein, J. M., 2003. Controlled & automatic processing: behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science 27, 525--559.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schneider, W. and Fisk, A. D. 1982. Degree of consistent training: improvements in search performance and automatic process development. Perception Psychophysics 31, 160--168.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shiffrin, R. M. 1988. Attention. In Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology 2nd Ed., R.C. Atkinson et al. Eds., Wiley, New York, 739--811.Google Scholar
- Shiffrin, R. M. and Schneider, W. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psych. Rev. 84, 127--190.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shipley, W. 1940. Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Western Psychological Press, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Tsang, P. S. and Shaner, T. L. 1998. Age, attention, expertise, and time-sharing performance. Psych. Aging 13, 323--347.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Valk, A. M. 1985. An experiment to study touch screen “button” design. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergonomics Soc. 29, 127--131.Google Scholar
- Walker, N., Philbin, D. A., and Fisk, A. D. 1997. Age-related differences in movement control: Adjusting sub-movement structure to optimize performance. J. Gerontology: Psych. Sciences 52, 40--52.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wechsler, D. 1997. Wechsler Memory Scale III. 3rd Ed. Psychological Corp., San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
- Wickens, C. D. 1980. The structure of attentional resources. In Attention and Performance VIII, R.S. Nickerson Ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 239--257.Google Scholar
- Wickens, C. D. 1984. Processing resources in attention. In Varieties of Attention, R. Parasuraman and D. R. Davies Eds., Academic Press. New York, 63--98.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Using direct and indirect input devices: Attention demands and age-related differences
Recommendations
Age-related differences in performance with touchscreens compared to traditional mouse input
CHI '13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsDespite the apparent popularity of touchscreens for older adults, little is known about the psychomotor performance of these devices. We compared performance between older adults and younger adults on four desktop and touchscreen tasks: pointing, ...
How Older Adults Learn to Use Mobile Devices: Survey and Field Investigations
Mobile computing devices, such as smart phones, offer benefits that may be especially valuable to older adults (age 65+). Yet, older adults have been shown to have difficulty learning to use these devices. In the research presented in this article, we ...
Investigating the Roles of Knowledge and Cognitive Abilities in Older Adult Information Seeking on the Web
This study investigated the influences of knowledge, particularly Internet, Web browser, and search engine knowledge, as well as cognitive abilities on older adult information seeking on the Internet. The emphasis on aspects of cognition was informed by ...
Comments