ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
The benefits of multimodal information: a meta-analysis comparing visual and visual-tactile feedback
Full text PdfPdf (230 KB)
Source International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces archive
Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Multimodal interfaces table of contents
Banff, Alberta, Canada
POSTER SESSION: Poster session 2 table of contents
Pages: 333 - 338  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-541-X
Authors
Matthew S. Prewett  University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Liuquin Yang  University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Frederick R. B. Stilson  University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Ashley A. Gray  University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Michael D. Coovert  University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Jennifer Burke  University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Elizabeth Redden  ARL/HRED @ SAIC, Fort Benning, GA
Linda R. Elliot  ARL/HRED @ SAIC, Fort Benning, GA
Sponsors
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 6,   Downloads (12 Months): 63,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1180995.1181057
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Information display systems have become increasingly complex and more difficult for human cognition to process effectively. Based upon Wicken's Multiple Resource Theory (MRT), information delivered using multiple modalities (i.e., visual and tactile) could be more effective than communicating the same information through a single modality. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare user effectiveness when using visual-tactile task feedback (a multimodality) to using only visual task feedback (a single modality). Results indicate that using visual-tactile feedback enhances task effectiveness more so than visual feedback (g = .38). When assessing different criteria, visual-tactile feedback is particularly effective at reducing reaction time (g = .631) and increasing performance (g = .618). Follow up moderator analyses indicate that visual-tactile feedback is more effective when workload is high (g = .844) and multiple tasks are being performed (g = .767). Implications of results are discussed in the paper.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Wickens, C., (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 2, 159--177.
 
2
Chiasson, J., McGrath, B., & Rupert, A. (2002). Enhanced situation awareness in sea, air, and land environment. In Proceedings of NATO RTO Human Factors & Medicine Panel Symposium on "Spatial disorientation in military vehicles: Causes, consequences and cures," La Coruñña, Spain, No. TRO-MP-086, 1--10.
 
3
Van Erp, J. & Van Veen, H. (2004). Vibrotactile in-vehicle navigation system. Transportation Research Part F, 247--256.
 
4
Wilson, D. B. (2001). Effect size determination program. Software.
 
5
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. O. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
 
6
Borenstein, M., & Rothstein, H. (1999). Comprehensive meta-analysis: A computer program for research synthesis. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
 
7
 
8
Cockburn, A., Firth, A. (2003). Improving the acquisition of small targets. In proceedings of the HCI, 181--196.
 
9
Diamond, D. D., Kass, S. J., Andrasik, F., Raj, A. K., & Rupert, A. H. (2002). Vibrotactile cueing as a master caution system for visual monitoring. Human Factors & Aerospace Safety, 2(4), 339--354.
 
10
Forster, B., Cavina-Pratesi, C., Aglioti, S. M., & Berlucchi, G. (2002). Redundant target effect and intersensory facilitation from visual-tactile interactions in simple reaction time. Experimental Brain Research, 143(4), 480--487.
 
11
 
12
Hopp, P. J., Smith, C. A. R., Clegg, B. A., & Heggestad, E. D. (2005). Interruption management: The use of attention-directing tactile cues. Human Factors, 47(1), 1--11.
13
14
 
15
Lindeman, R. W., Yanagida, Y., Sibert, J. L., & Lavine, R. (2003). Effective vibrotactile cueing in a visual search task. Proceedings of the Ninth IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2003), Sept. 1-5, 2003, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 89--96.
 
16
McGee, M. R. (1999). A haptically enhanced scrollbar: Force-Feedback as a means of reducing the problems associated with scrolling, First PHANTOM Users Research Symposium, May, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany.
 
17
Moorhead, I. R., Holmes, S., & Furnell, A. (2004). Understanding multisensory integration for pilot spatial orientation. QINETIQ/KI/CHS/TR042277.
18
 
19
20
 
21
Tang, H., Beebe, D. J., & Kramer, A. F. (1997). Comparison of tactile and visual feedback for a multi-state input mechanism. IEMBS '97: Proceedings of the 19th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 4 1697--1700.
 
22
 
23
Van Erp, J. B. F., & Verschoor, M. H. (2004). Cross-modal visual and vibrotactile tracking. Applied Ergonomics, 35(2), 105--112.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Matthew S. Prewett: colleagues
Liuquin Yang: colleagues
Frederick R. B. Stilson: colleagues
Ashley A. Gray: colleagues
Michael D. Coovert: colleagues
Jennifer Burke: colleagues
Elizabeth Redden: colleagues
Linda R. Elliot: colleagues