1 / 27

The Impact of Control-Display Gain on User Performance in Pointing Tasks

The Impact of Control-Display Gain on User Performance in Pointing Tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 2008, Volume 23, pp.215~250. Gery Casiez , Daniel Vogel, Ravin Balakrishnan. Department of Information management Engineering. Korea University. Contents. Introduction Related work

ann
Download Presentation

The Impact of Control-Display Gain on User Performance in Pointing Tasks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Impact of Control-Display Gain on User Performance in Pointing Tasks Human-Computer Interaction, 2008, Volume 23, pp.215~250 GeryCasiez, Daniel Vogel, RavinBalakrishnan Department of Information management Engineering Korea University

  2. Contents • Introduction • Related work • Point Acceleration performance model • Experiment 1 : Desktop size display • Experiment 2 : Very large, high resolution display • Conclusion

  3. 1. Introduction (1/2) • Background • Pointing at a target is a fundamental and frequent task in GUIs • A marginal improvement in pointing performance can have a large effect on a user’s productivity. • But, Pointer acceleration has not been thoroughly studied. • Pointer Acceleration (PA) • manipulates the CD gain between the input device and the display pointer as a function of the device velocity ※ device velocity : high → CD gain high ( > 1), slow → CD gain low ( < 1) • Control-Display(CD) gain • The ratio of the amount of movement of an input device and the controlled objects (i.e. typically a cursor) • Constant Gain (CG) • is the simpler method for manipulating CD gain via a constant multiplier regardless of device movement characteristics.

  4. 1. Introduction (2/2) • Previous Research • Compared PA with constant CD gain : harms performance or little difference • Effect of CD gain is more extensive, but no definitive results • Performance follows a U-shaped curve • No effect at all • Object • Propose a model for TA with PA, which adapts the Fitts’ law ID to accommodate the effective motor-space changes created by the PA function • Compares the effects of constant CD gain and PA in two experiments • Propose a model identifying boundary constant CD gain levels to account for quantization effects

  5. 2. Related Work (1/4) 2.1. Fitt’s Law • Used to model direct pointing where the hand taps physical objects • Also robust for indirect pointing where control device and display pointer are decoupled • Decoupling creates 2 Space : display space, motor space • Total movement time D : target’s distance, W : target’s width, a & b : empirically determined constant, logarithmic term : pointing task’s index of difficulty (ID) 2.2. Constant CD gain • CD gain : the ratio of pointer velocity to device velocity V : velocity • Consideration • Quantization problem : resolution of device and display • Clutch : device movement area constraint or comfortable range of arm movement • No term for CD gain in Fitt’s law

  6. 2. Related Work (2/4) 2.3. Prior Studies Source : Jellinek, H. D., & Card, S. K. (1990). Figure 3. movement time vs. gain

  7. 2. Related Work (3/4) 2.4. Dynamic Gain : PA • PA increases CD gain as the velocity of the control device increases • This behavior is motivated by the hybrid optimized initial impulse motor control model for human pointing motions • PA is one of many techniques that influence the motor-space through which the device travels during target acquisition: • High gain reduces the motor distance during ballistic movement • low gain increases the motor size of the target during corrective action Figure 2. Decomposition of a pointing movement into the ballistic and corrective phases

  8. 2. Related Work (4/4) 2.4. Dynamic Gain (cont’) • PA function f produces a CD gain G from the device motor space velocity v • the function may map motor-space velocity directly to display space velocity, but this is equivalent • G = f(v) ; f (PA function), v (device motor space velocity) Figure 3. Plotting the control device velocity against Control Display gain shows the characteristic curve of pointer acceleration functions.

  9. 3. PA Performance Model (1/2) • PA causes dynamic modification to the target’s D and W in motor-space. • This modification can be modeled to predict the extent to which the Fitts’ law ID changes in motor space for each target. • Motor space index of difficulty (IDmot) formula for PA. • ID in motor space equals ID in display space so difficulty of the pointing task has not changed • Assume unchanged constants for a and b, Fitts’ law predicts the exact same MT regardless of the change in CD gain • Ideal PA function • high CD gain : GD (ballistic phase, affects distance to target) • low CD gain : GW (corrective phase, affects target width) • GD , GW : k, j times greater than baseline CD gain level, j < k • D and W of the target in motor space are not reduced equally • ID in motor space is now smaller than the ID in display space by a factor of j/k • Users are able to take advantage of a reduction of ID in motor-space and improve performance

  10. 3. PA Performance Model (2/2) • CD gain continuously changes with the velocity of the pointing device • Mean CD gain used to cover the distance (CDD) and near the target (CDW) • ID in motor space • CDW/CDD be r and D >> W, then • 1/r << D/W, then

  11. 4. Experiment 1 : Desktop size display (1/7) 4.1. Apparatus • Monitor : 20 inch LCD, 1600 × 1200 resolution, 100 DPI • Mouse : : 1600 DPI • this provided a maximum CD gain of 16 with no quantization problems 4.2. Task and Stimuli • Task : a reciprocal one-dimensional pointing task to select two fixed-sized targets back and forth in succession • Stimuli : when participants selected a target, target would swap color and if missed target, sound was heard Figure 4. Experimental Display

  12. 4. Experiment 1 : Desktop size display (2/7) 4.3. Participants • 8 volunteers (all male), mean age : 24.5 (SD = 6.3) • Divided two groups of 4 : Windows XP/Vista users, those that did not 4.4. Design • A within-subjects design • Independent variables • Technique : CG (Constant Gain), PA (Pointer Acceleration) • Level : 6 CD gain levels for CG, 6 scale factors for PA • CD gain Levels for the CG technique : 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 • Scale Level for the PA technique : 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25 • Distance between targets : DL = 360 mm, DM = 180 mm, DS = 90 mm • Target width : WL = 8 mm, WM = 4 mm, WS = 2 mm • 8 D-W combinations gave 5 task IDs : 3.6, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5

  13. 4. Experiment 1 : Desktop size display (3/7) 4.5. Results and Discussion • Error Rate • increases with small widths • A pairwise comparison • W = 2 mm : 6.8%, W = 4 mm : 4.5%, W=8mm : 3.9%. • The overall mean error rate was 5.0%. • No other factors or interactions showed significant effects for error rate • Movement time

  14. 4. Experiment 1 : Desktop size display (4/7) 4.5. Results and Discussion (cont’) • Mouse Operating Range and Limb Use • operating range decreases proportionally with increasing CD gain for CG Levels • CG Level 1, 205 mm ⇒ CG Level 12, 18 mm (Figure 8a) • PA Level 0.1, 177mm ⇒ PA Level 1.25, 26mm (Figure 8b) • Limb usage profiles : the percentage of time limbs or combinations of limbs moved in each frame during a trial (Figure 9). • limbs are rarely used in isolation • As the effective CD gain for each Level increases, there is progression from using all limbs together to using the hand and fingers in combination to using the hand or fingers individually

  15. 4. Experiment 1 : Desktop size display (5/7) 4.5. Results and Discussion (cont’) • Overshooting • more pronounced overshooting in high difficulty selections (more distant or smaller targets) • Overshooting also increased with Level with high levels of CD gain causing more overshooting on difficult targets (Figure 10). (a) Constant gain (b) pointer acceleration

  16. 4. Experiment 1 : Desktop size display (6/7) 4.5. Results and Discussion (cont’) • Peak velocity in motor and display space • Peak motor-space velocity (PMV) : the maximum velocity of the mouse • Peak display-space velocity (PDV) : the peak velocity of the on-screen pointer • These are related by the function mapping motor movement to CD gain— constant for the CG technique and dynamic for the PA technique • PA technique • PMV and PDV increasing with increased D • This confirms that the intensity of a ballistic movement is dependent on the distance to be covered • User Preference • 5-point Likert scale • On average, participants preferred CG Level 4 and PA Level 1 for the two techniques.

  17. 4. Experiment 1 : Desktop size display (7/7) 4.5. Results and Discussion (cont’) • Fitts’ Law Analysis and Relationship to the Model • Fitts’ law models are based on regression analysis of the 8 D-W combinations

  18. 5. Experiment 2 : Very large, high-resolution (1/6) 5.1. Apparatus, Task and Stimuli • Same Apparatus, Task and Stimuli as in Experiment 1 • except display : 4.7 m × 1.7 m, 25 DPI 5.2. Participants • 8 volunteers (6 male, 2 female), mean age : 23.5 (SD = 1.6) • None had participated in Experiment 1 5.3. Design • A within-subjects design • Independent variables • Technique : CG (Constant Gain), PA (Pointer Acceleration) • Level : 6 CD gain levels for CG, 6 scale factors for PA • CD gain Levels for the CG technique : 2, 5, 8, 12, 16, 20 • Scale Level for the PA technique : 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 2.0 • Distance between targets : DL = 4,500mm, DM = 2,250 mm, DS = 1,125 mm • Target width : WL = 36 mm, WM = 18 mm, WS = 9 mm • 8 D-W combinations gave 5 task IDs : 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

  19. 5. Experiment 2 : Very large, high-resolution (2/6) 5.4. Results and Discussion • Error Rate : 4% with no significant difference across independent variables • Movement time • To fairly compare, removed the two first CG and PA Levels • no significant difference between the two techniques • Unlike Experiment 1, where PA had a 6% advantage over CG for the smallest targets : suspect that WS was too large to replicate the accuracy problem

  20. 5. Experiment 2 : Very large, high-resolution (3/6) 5.4. Results and Discussion (cont’) • Clutching Time • Because of the high amount of clutching that involved both arm and forearm in some conditions, we were not able to perform an analysis of limb usage

  21. 5. Experiment 2 : Very large, high-resolution (4/6) 5.4. Results and Discussion (cont’) • Mouse Operating Range • operating range decreases with increased Level

  22. 5. Experiment 2 : Very large, high-resolution (5/6) 5.4. Results and Discussion (cont’) • Overshooting • is significantly more pronounced with PA (M = 1.44%) than with CG (0.78%) • Overshooting increases with Level and Distance • Unlike Experiment 1, the significant effect of Width is not caused by increased overshooting on small targets • User Preference • 5-point Likert scale • On average, participants preferred CG Level 16 and PA Level 1.5 for the two techniques.

  23. 5. Experiment 2 : Very large, high-resolution (6/6) 5.4. Results and Discussion (cont’) • Fitts’ Law Analysis and Relationship to the Model • Fitts’ law models are based on regression analysis of the 8 D-W combinations • In spite of strong regression fitness, participants could not fully exploit the ID reduction in motor space • Clutching eroded the theoretical performance advantage of PA

  24. 6. Conclusion (1/3) 6.1. Gain Level • On both displays, and in both CG and PA techniques • Low levels of CD gain : negative effect on performance. • High levels of CD gain : increased overshooting • indicating an issue with muscle control accuracy because of the reduced distances in motor-space • Pilot Experiment on High level CD gain • CD gain level : 8, 16, 20, 30, 40, 50 • Target distances : 4,500, 2,250, 1,125 mm • Target widths : 36, 18, 9 mm • MT appears to remain constant for the CD gain levels above 16 • CD gain has little effect on pointing performance until human limits of speed and accuracy are approached Figure 18. Usable CD gain range

  25. 6. Conclusion (2/3) • Define a usable range of CD gain settings • minimum usable CD gain (CDmin) ORmax : maximum operating range Dmax:: largest expected target distance • maximum usable CD gain (CDmax) Wmin : Minimum expected target width CDlmax : limb precision CDqmax : device quantization CDqmax : device quantization Mouseres, Screenres : ratio of mouse and screen resolution Handres : minimum resolution of the hand and fingers ※example 400 DPI mouse, 20″ display (100 DPI), maximum TD (360 mm), minimum TW (2 mm), maximum operating range (250 mm), hand res (0.2 mm) CDmin = 1.4 ; 360 / 250 CDmax = min (CDqmax= 4, Cdlma=10) = 4 ; min (400 / 100, 2 / 0.2) = 4

  26. 6. Conclusion (3/3) 6.2. Pointer Acceleration Versus Constant Gain • On the standard desktop display, PA was 3.3% faster overall, and up to 5.6% faster with small targets • We also found that PA follows Fitts’ law with good regression fitness • Finally we encourage researchers to use pointer acceleration rather than constant gain as a base technique for comparing new pointing technique performance

  27. ? Q & A

More Related