Using direct and indirect input devices: Attention demands and age-related differences

ABSTRACT

Researchers have suggested that attention is a key moderating variable predicting performance with an input device [Greenstein and Arnaut 1988], although the attention demands of devices have not been directly investigated. We hypothesized that the attentional demands of input devices are intricately linked to whether the device matches the input requirements of the on-screen task. Further, matching task and device should be more important for attentionally reduced groups, such as older adults. Younger and older adults used either a direct (touch screen) or indirect (rotary encoder) input device to perform matched or mismatched input tasks under a spectrum of attention allocation conditions. Input devices required attention—more so for older adults, especially in a mismatch situation. In addition, task performance was influenced by the match between task demands and input device characteristics. Though both groups benefited from a match between input device and task input requirements, older adults benefited more, and this benefit increased as less attention was available. We offer an a priori method to choose an input device for a task by considering the overlap between device attributes and input requirements. This data should affect design decisions concerning input device selection across age groups and task contexts.

REFERENCES

• 1: Albert, A. E. 1982. The effect of graphic input devices on performance in a cursor positioning task. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergonomics Soc. 26, 54--58.
• 2: Bekker, M. M., Van Nes, F. L., and Juola, J. F. 1995. A comparison of mouse and speech input control of a text-annotation system. Behav. Inform. Technol. 14, 14--22.
• 3: Stuart K. Card , Jock D. Mackinlay , George G. Robertson, The design space of input devices, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people, p.117-124, April 01-05, 1990, Seattle, Washington, United States [doi>10.1145/97243.97263]
• 4: Charness, N., Holley, P., Feddon, J., and Jastrzembski, T. 2005. Light pen use and practice minimize age and hand performance differences in pointing tasks. Human Factors 46, 373--384.
• 5: Leslie E. Chipman , Benjamin B. Bederson , Jennifer A. Golbeck, SlideBar: analysis of a linear input device, Behaviour & Information Technology, v.23 n.1, p.1-9, January-February 2004 [doi>10.1080/01449290310001638487]
• 6: English, W. K., Engelbart, D. C., and Berman, M. L. 1967. Display-selection techniques for text manipulation. IEEE Trans. Hum. Factors Electron. 1, 5--15.
• 7: Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., and Sharit, J. 2004. Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
• 8: James D. Foley , Victor L. Wallace , Peggy Chan, The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, v.4 n.11, p.13-48, Nov. 1984
• 9: Mehmet Gokturk , John L. Sibert, An analysis of the index finger as a pointing device, CHI '99 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, May 15-20, 1999, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania [doi>10.1145/632716.632892]
• 10: Daniel Gopher, The skill of attention control: acquisition and execution of attention strategies, Attention and performance XIV (silver jubilee volume): synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993
• 11: Greenstein, J. S., and Arnaut, L. Y. 1988. Input devices. In The Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, M. Helander Ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 495--516.
• 12: Hancock, P. A. 1996. Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload. Ergonomics 39, 1146--1162.
• 13: Robert J. K. Jacob, Human-computer interaction: input devices, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.28 n.1, p.177-179, March 1996 [doi>10.1145/234313.234387]
• 14: Robert J. K. Jacob , Linda E. Sibert , Daniel C. McFarlane , M. Preston Mullen, Jr., Integrality and separability of input devices, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), v.1 n.1, p.3-26, March 1994 [doi>10.1145/174630.174631]
• 15: Tiffany Jastrzembski , Neil Charness , Patricia Holley , Jeffrey Feddon, Input devices for web browsing: age and hand effects, Universal Access in the Information Society, v.4 n.1, p.39-45, September 2005 [doi>10.1007/s10209-003-0083-5]
• 16: Juul-Kristensen B., Laursen B., Pilegaard M., and Jensen B. R. 2004. Physical workload during use of speech recognition and traditional computer input devices. Ergonomics 47, 119--133.
• 17: J Karat , J E McDonald , M Anderson, A comparison of menu selection techniques: touch panel, mouse and keyboard, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.25 n.1, p.73-88, July 1986 [doi>10.1016/S0020-7373(86)80034-7]
• 18: Kerr, B. 1973. Processing demands during mental operations. Memory Cognition 1, 401--412.
• 19: Korteling, J. E. 1994. Effects of aging, skill modification, and demand alternation on multiple-task performance. Human Factors 36, 27--43.
• 20: Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. F., and Strayer, D. L. 1995. Training for attentional control in dual task settings: A comparison of young and old adults. J. Exper. Psych. Applied 1, 50--76.
• 21: Madden, D. J. 1986. Adult age differences in the attentional capacity demands of visual search. Cognitive Devel. 1, 335--363.
• 22: Martin, T. A. and Allan, W. E. 1991. An evaluation of touch-screen input for a HyperCard based digit-span task.Behav. Resear. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 23, 253--255.
• 23: McDowd, J. M. and Shaw, R. J. 2000. Attention and aging: A functional perspective. In The Handbook of Aging and Cognition 2nd Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ, 221--292
• 24: McLaughlin, A. C., Rogers, W. A., and Fisk, A. D. 2003. Effects of attentional demand on input device use in younger and older adults. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergonomics Soc. 25, 247--250.
• 25: Shawna Meyer , Oryx Cohen , Erik Nilsen, Device comparisons for goal-directed drawing tasks, Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, p.251-252, April 24-28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/259963.260468]
• 26: Murata, A. and Iwase, H. 2005. Usability of touch-panel interfaces for older adults. Human Factors 47, 766--776.
• 27: Navon, D. and Gopher, D. 1979. On the economy of the human-processing system. Psych. Rev. 86, 214--255.
• 28: Norman, D. A. and Bobrow, D. G. 1975. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psych. 7, 44--64.
• 29: Oldfield, R. C. 1971. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9, 97--113.
• 30: Park, D. C., Smith, A. D., Dudley, W. N., and Lafronza, V. N. 1989. Effects of age and a divided attention task presented during encoding and retrieval on memory. J. Exper. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 15, 1185--1191.
• 31: Pashler, H. and Johnston, J. C. 1998. Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In Attention, H. Pashler Ed., Psychology Press/Erlbaum. Hove, England, 155--189.
• 32: Ponds, R. W., Brouwer, W. H., and Van Wolffelaar, P. C. 1988. Age differences in divided attention in a simulated driving task. J. Gerontology 43, 151--156.
• 33: Posner, M. I. 1978. Chronometric Explorations of Mind. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
• 34: Reinvang, I. 1998. Validation of reaction time in continuous performance tasks as an index of attention by electro-physiological measures. J. Clinical Exper. Neuropsych. 20, 885--897.
• 35: Rogers, W. A. and Fisk, A. D. 2001. Understanding the role of attention in cognitive aging research. In Handbook of the Psychology of Aging 5th Ed., J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie Eds., Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 267--287.
• 36: Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., McLaughlin, A. C., and Pak, R. 2005. Touch a screen or turn a knob: Choosing the best device for the job. Human Factors 47, 271--288.
• 37: Rogers, W. A., Hertzog, C., and Fisk, A. D. 2002. An individual differences analysis of ability and strategy influences: Age-related differences in associative learning. J. Exper. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 26, 359--394.
• 38: Scheneider, W. and Chein, J. M., 2003. Controlled & automatic processing: behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science 27, 525--559.
• 39: Schneider, W. and Fisk, A. D. 1982. Degree of consistent training: improvements in search performance and automatic process development. Perception Psychophysics 31, 160--168.
• 40: Shiffrin, R. M. 1988. Attention. In Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology 2nd Ed., R.C. Atkinson et al. Eds., Wiley, New York, 739--811.
• 41: Shiffrin, R. M. and Schneider, W. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psych. Rev. 84, 127--190.
• 42: Shipley, W. 1940. Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Western Psychological Press, Los Angeles, CA.
• 43: Tsang, P. S. and Shaner, T. L. 1998. Age, attention, expertise, and time-sharing performance. Psych. Aging 13, 323--347.
• 44: Valk, A. M. 1985. An experiment to study touch screen “button” design. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergonomics Soc. 29, 127--131.
• 45: Walker, N., Philbin, D. A., and Fisk, A. D. 1997. Age-related differences in movement control: Adjusting sub-movement structure to optimize performance. J. Gerontology: Psych. Sciences 52, 40--52.
• 46: Wechsler, D. 1997. Wechsler Memory Scale III. 3rd Ed. Psychological Corp., San Antonio, TX.
• 47: Wickens, C. D. 1980. The structure of attentional resources. In Attention and Performance VIII, R.S. Nickerson Ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 239--257.
• 48: Wickens, C. D. 1984. Processing resources in attention. In Varieties of Attention, R. Parasuraman and D. R. Davies Eds., Academic Press. New York, 63--98.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  B. Hardware
  B.4 INPUT/OUTPUT AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS
      B.4.2 Input/Output Devices
          Subjects: Channels and controllers

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Ergonomics; Evaluation/methodology; User-centered design; Theory and methods

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
Human-computer interaction, attentional demands, cognitive translation, direct manipulation, indirect manipulation, older adults