A mouse was modified to add tactile feedback via a solenoid-driven pin projecting through a hole in the left mouse button. An experiment is described using a target selection task under five different sensory feedback conditions ('normal', auditory, colour, tactile, and combined). No differences were found in overall response times, error rates, or bandwidths; however, significant differences were found in the final positioning times (from the cursor entering the target to selecting the target). For the latter, tactile feedback was the quickest, normal feedback was the slowest. An examination of the spatial distributions in responses showed a peaked, narrow distribution for the normal condition, and a flat, wide distribution for the tactile (and combined) conditions. It is argued that tactile feedback allows subjects to use a wider area of the target and to select targets more quickly once the cursor is inside the target. Design considerations for human-computer interfaces are discussed.
A multi-modal mouse incorporating tactile and force feedback was tested in a target selection task with 12 subjects . Four feedback conditions (normal , tactile , force , tactile ϩ force) were combined with three target distances and three target sizes . We found significant reductions in the overall movement times and in the time to stop the cursor after entering the target . This ef fect was particularly pronounced for the tactile condition and for small targets . However , compared to normal feedback , error rates were higher with the tactile and tactile ϩ force conditions . The motorsensory bandwidth calculated using Fitt's law , normalized for spatial variability , was highest in the presence of tactile feedback (6 . 4 bits / s) . This was followed by tactile ϩ force (6 . 2 bits / s) , normal (5 . 9 bits / s) , and force feedback (5 . 8 bits / s) . These results indicate that modifying a mouse to include tactile feedback , and to a lesser extent , force feedback , of fers performance advantages in target selection tasks .
In a previous study where reaction-time methods were combined with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex, cortico-spinal excitability was shown to reflect time preparation. Provided that subjects can accurately estimate time, the amplitude of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) diminish progressively during the interval separating the warning signal from the response signal (i.e., the foreperiod). On the other hand, several experiments have demonstrated that the amplitude of the Hoffman (H) reflex elicited in prime movers diminishes during the foreperiod of reaction-time tasks. The aim of the present study was to compare the time course of the respective decrements of H-reflex and MEP amplitude during a constant 500-ms foreperiod. The subjects (n=8) participated in two experimental sessions. In one session, H-reflexes were induced in a tonically activated, responding hand muscle, the flexor pollicis brevis, at different times during the foreperiod of a visual-choice reaction-time task. In the other session, motor potentials were evoked in the same muscle by TMS of the motor cortex delivered in the same behavioral conditions and at the same times as in the first session. The results show that both H-reflexes and MEPs diminish in amplitude during the foreperiod, which replicates and extends previous findings. Interestingly, the time constants of the two decrements differed. There was a facilitatory effect of both electrical and magnetic stimulations on the subject's performance: reaction time was shorter for the trials during which a stimulation was delivered than for the no-stimulation trials. This facilitation was maximal when the stimulations were delivered simultaneously with the warning signal and vanished progressively with stimulation time.
Two fractionated RT experiments tested whether the response-preparation or response-implementation hypothesis better accounts for the observation that two-choice reaction time (RT) usually takes longer when the responses are performed by the fingers of the same hand (within-hand repertoire) than by the fingers of the two hands (between-hands repertoire). In Experiment I (n equals 8), the effect of repertoire on the premotor time and the motor time were studied. RT was divided into the two periods with respect to the onset of change in electromyographic (EMG) activity of the flexor digitorum profundus. Type of repertoire affected both time periods. In Experiment 2 (n = 16), the effects of repertoire and foreperiod duration on the premotor and motor times of the flexor digitorum profundus and flexor digitorum sublimis were studied. The results of Experiment I were confirmed, and the effects of repertoire and foreperiod duration were found to be additive on premotor time but interactive on motor time. These findings led to rejection of the response-preparation hypothesis and instead supported the view that the central command for the flexion of the right middle finger differs according to the type of repertoire. The command appears to specify a lower rate of recruitment of the prime movers in the within-hand repertoire than in the between-hands repertoire. The execution of the central commands may depend on the state of excitability of the spinal neurons. Analysis of the EMG signals revealed that speed of contraction of the prime movers depends on repertoire when the foreperiod is long but not when it is short. The additivity of the effects of repertoire and of foreperiod duration on premotor time support the view that regardless of the state of preparation of the subject the pattern of EMG activity required for flexion of the right middle finger in each repertoire is specified during the premotor time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.