Evaluation of Child–Computer Interaction Using Fitts’ Law: A Comparison between a Standard Computer Mouse and a Head Mouse

Abstract

This study evaluates and compares the suitability for child–computer interaction (CCI, the branch within human–computer interaction focused on interactive computer systems for children) of two devices: a standard computer mouse and the ENLAZA interface, a head mouse that measures the user’s head posture using an inertial sensor. A multidirectional pointing task was used to assess the motor performance and the users’ ability to learn such a task. The evaluation was based on the interpretation of the metrics derived from Fitts’ law. Ten children aged between 6 and 8 participated in this study. Participants performed a series of pre- and post-training tests for both input devices. After the experiments, data were analyzed and statistically compared. The results show that Fitts’ law can be used to detect changes in the learning process and assess the level of psychomotor development (by comparing the performance of adults and children). In addition, meaningful differences between the fine motor control (hand) and the gross motor control (head) were found by comparing the results of the interaction using the two devices. These findings suggest that Fitts’ law metrics offer a reliable and objective way of measuring the progress of physical training or therapy.

Ability-Based Methods for Personalized Keyboard Generation

“…Much of the work using Fitts’ Law to assess 2D tasks has been pioneered by MacKenzie [ 67 - 73 ], who has demonstrated the utility of using this “model by analogy” to empirically evaluate user control with a 1D or 2D task. Many studies leveraging MacKenzie’s Shannon formulation of Fitts’ Law to evaluate movement systematically vary target angle to effectively “smooth over” the effects of movement direction [ 44 , 74 - 76 ]. To do so, these works typically utilize an ISO-standard multidirectional point-select task that leverages a cluster of circular targets of equal diameter positioned equidistantly around a large circle; by instructing participants to navigate and select diametrically opposite targets, the effects of movement direction can be effectively ignored when relating movement time to task index of difficulty (i.e., via achieving robust R 2 values across direction).…”