Effects of Auditory Feedback on Movement Time in a Fitts Task

Hatfield, Brent C.; Wyatt, William R.; Shea, John B.

doi:10.1080/00222895.2010.504759

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The shorter average MT observed in the presence of augmented spatial terminal feedback was hypothesized and has been previously reported (i.e., Hatfield et al, 2010). Indeed, Hatfield et al (2010) observed that more recent incarnations of Fitts' reaching paradigm (e.g., displacing a cursor on a screen) do not provide much feedback about endpoint accuracy.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Indeed, Hatfield et al (2010) observed that more recent incarnations of Fitts' reaching paradigm (e.g., displacing a cursor on a screen) do not provide much feedback about endpoint accuracy. To test the importance of spatial terminal feedback, they asked participants to complete reciprocal reaching movements with a cursor to 3 pairs of targets of differing IDs (4.03, 5.07, and 7.64 bits).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of auditory feedback yielded shorter average MT and shorter time spent in the deceleration phase of the movement. Hatfield et al (2010) posited that providing an auditory cue once the cursor entered the target's area facilitated earlier and more efficient movement reversals. Notably, however, Hatfield et al's explanation does not provide a framework for accounting for the present results because the discrete reaching responses of this study did not entail a movement reversal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An error was defined as a movement endpoint falling outside the target area and error rates ranged from 0 to 10% of the trials across participants. Although some researchers have discarded data from individuals who exhibited large error rates (e.g., Hatfield et al, 2010 excluded data from participants with error rates larger than 5%), we opted to segregate participants into two groups (i.e., accuracy-prone vs. speed-prone). Using the same 5% criterion as Hatfield et al (2010), 12 participants exhibited error rates of 5% or below in both sessions (i.e., accuracy-prone), which included all three left-handed individuals, whereas seven participants made endpoint errors on more than 5% of the trials in either session (i.e., speed-prone).…”

Section: Secondary Data Reduction and Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although some researchers have discarded data from individuals who exhibited large error rates (e.g., Hatfield et al, 2010 excluded data from participants with error rates larger than 5%), we opted to segregate participants into two groups (i.e., accuracy-prone vs. speed-prone). Using the same 5% criterion as Hatfield et al (2010), 12 participants exhibited error rates of 5% or below in both sessions (i.e., accuracy-prone), which included all three left-handed individuals, whereas seven participants made endpoint errors on more than 5% of the trials in either session (i.e., speed-prone). The individuals assigned to the latter group appeared to prioritize speed over accuracy, which has been previously denoted as a subjective-level of speed-accuracy trade-off performance (e.g., Adam, 1992; Zhai et al, 2004).…”

Section: Secondary Data Reduction and Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Augmented feedback influences upper limb reaching movement times but does not explain violations of Fitts' Law

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fitts' (1954) classic theorem asserts that the movement time (MT) of voluntary reaches is determined by amplitude and width requirements (i.e., index of difficulty: ID). Actions associated with equivalent IDs should elicit equivalent MTs regardless of the amplitude and/ or width requirements. However, contemporary research has reported that amplitude-based contributions to IDs yield larger increases in MTs than width-based contributions. This discrepancy may relate to the presence of augmented terminal feedback in Fitts' original research, which has not been provided in more recent investigations (e.g., Heath et al., 2011). To address this issue, participants performed reaching movements during two sessions wherein feedback regarding terminal accuracy was either provided or withheld. It was hypothesized that the absence of augmented terminal feedback would result in a stereotyped performance across target widths and explain the violation of Fitts' theorem. Yet, the results revealed distinct influences of amplitude- and width-based manipulations on MT, which also persisted across feedback conditions. This finding supports the assertion that the unitary nature of Fitts' theorem does not account for a continuous range of movement amplitudes and target widths. A secondary analysis was competed in an attempt to further investigate the violation of Fitts' Law. Based on error rates, participants were segregated into accuracy- and speed-prone groups. Additionally, target's IDs were recalculated based on each participant's performance using the effective target width (i.e., IDWe) instead of the nominal target width. When using MT data from the accuracy-prone group with this IDWe, the aforementioned violation was alleviated. Overall, augmented terminal feedback did not explain the violation of Fitts' theorem, although one should consider using the effective target width and participant's strategy in future investigations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Secondary Data Reduction and Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%