Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction

Little, Murray Reed; Nigay, Laurence

doi:10.1007/3-540-45348-2

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of a performance assessment, shown in Table 3 as indicated by throughput, revealed that the TP of the mouse is 4.73 bps. This is in line with prior studies, which have noted the range of the mouse's TP as 3.7-4.9 bps (Soukoreff andMacKenzie, 2004), andJusoh (2001), where the range is 3.0-5.0 bps. The results of the experiment ensure that the methodology, experimental apparatus, data collection, etc., are apparently in alignment with other researchers' techniques.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Widodo et al: Hand-movement gestures to substitute for mouse-cursor placement tainment as a control (Kranz et al, 2010); fiber optic in Zimmerman et al (1986); a flexible plastic resistive ink sensor as in Power Glove by Mattel, Inc. (Sturman and Zeltzer, 1994); and ultrasonic and magnetic hand position tracking technology as in Data Glove (Zimmerman et al, 1986) and Zimmerman and Lanier (1989). The grasping type as in a Wii remote, GyroPoint, and RemotePoint was discussed and studied in Natapov et al (2009), MacKenzie and Jusoh (2001), and Norman and Norman (2010). The use of optic types such as a laser pointer as a pointing device has been discussed in Myers et al (2002) and Oh and Stuerzlinger (2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A study of hand-movement gestures to substitute for mouse-cursor placement using an inertial sensor

Widodo

Quita

Setiawan

et al. 2019

J. Sens. Sens. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper examines the new study of hand orientation as a substitute for computer-mouse movement and is evaluated based on ISO/TS 9241 part 411: Ergonomics of human–system interaction-evaluation methods for the design of physical input devices. Two pairs of hand-orientation candidates were evaluated, using, for example, pitch–roll and pitch–yaw to substitute for up–down and left–right mouse-cursor movements. The up–down cursor movement was generated from the pitch orientation, while the left–right cursor movement was generated from the roll or yaw orientation, depending on the evaluation of the proposed gesture. The research employed a standard computer mouse as a baseline comparison for the study. The empirical study was conducted to evaluate quantitative performance such as throughput and movement time. The best impression resulted when the throughput had the greatest value as well as the shortest movement time. The performance test was based on Fitts's law using a multi-directional tapping test as suggested by ISO/TS 9241-411. The test was divided into several levels of difficulty, including high, medium, low, and very low. The other assessment is qualitative and was performed using the comfort-rating scale questionnaire and rating of perceived exertion of comfortability and fatigue. The quantitative results show that pitch–yaw throughput is slightly higher than for the pitch–roll gesture, and that the movement time in pitch–yaw is slightly less than in pitch–roll, although there is no statistically significant difference between the two. We also found that pitch–yaw movements have a higher level of comfort based on the comfort-rating scale test. Since the test was divided into levels of difficulty, we identified those gestures suitable for the task with a low and very low level of difficulty based on throughput, movement time, and error-rate results. Finally, this study suggests that pitch–roll and pitch–yaw movements of the hand can be used as substitutes for the mouse, and that pitch–yaw movements are superior in regard to causing less fatigue than pitch–roll movements. Furthermore, this study provides a new suggestion for a suitable level of difficulty when using an inertial sensor as an emulator for the movement of a mouse cursor in the field of human–computer interaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%