Human performance using computer input devices in the preferred and non-preferred hands

ABSTRACT

Subjects' performance was compared in pointing and dragging tasks using the preferred and non-preferred hands. Tasks were tested using three different input devices: a mouse, a trackball, and a tablet-with-stylus. The trackball had the least degradation across hands in performing the tasks, however it remained inferior to both the mouse and stylus. For small distances and small targets, the preferred hand was superior. However, for larger targets and larger distances, both hands performed about the same. The experiment shows that the non-preferred hand is more than a poor approximation of the preferred hand. The hands are complementary, each having its own strength and weakness. One design implication is that the non-preferred hand is well suited for tasks that do not require precise action, such as scrolling.

REFERENCES

• 1: annett, j., ,-mnett, ~., rtuoson, r. 1. w., a: l Ulllel-, A. (1979). The control of movement in the preferred and non-preferred hands. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31,641-652.
• 2: Boritz, J., Booth, K. S., & Cowan, W. B. (1991). Fitts's law studies of directional mouse movement. Proceedings of Graphics interface "91 (pp. 216-223). toronto: Canadian Information Processing Society.
• 3: W. Buxton , B. Myers, A study in two-handed input, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.321-326, April 13-17, 1986, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
• 4: Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381-391.
• 5: Fitts, P. M., & Peterson, J. R. (1964). Information capacity of discrete motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 103-112.
• 6: Flowers, K. (1975). Handedness and controlled movement. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 39-52.
• 7: Greenstein, J. S., & Amaut, L. Y. (1988). Input devices. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of humancomputer interaction (pp. 495-519). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• 8: Kimura, D. & Vanderwolf, C. H. (1970). The relation between hand preference and the performance of individual finger movements by left and right hands. Brain, 93, 769-774.
• 9: Ian Scott Mackenzie, Fitts' law as a performance model in human-computer interaction, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Canada, 1992
• 10: MacKenzie, I. S. (1992). Fitts' law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Human- Computer Interaction, 7, 91-139.
• 11: I. Scott MacKenzie , Abigail Sellen , William A. S. Buxton, A comparison of input devices in element pointing and dragging tasks, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology, p.161-166, April 27-May 02, 1991, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States [doi>10.1145/108844.108868]
• 12: Meyer, D. E., Smith, J. E. K., Kornblum, S., Abrams, R. A., & Wright, C. E. (1990). Speedaccuracy tradeoffs in aimed movements: Toward a theory of rapid voluntary action. In M. Jeannerod (E~.), Attention and Performance XIII (pp. 173-226). Hillsdale, NJ.'. Erlbaum.
• 13: N. P. Milner, A review of human performance and preferences with different input devices to computer systems, Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the British Computer Society on People and computers IV, p.341-362, October 1988, Univ. of Manchester, United Kingdom
• 14: Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
• 15: Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1968). Errors and error correction in choice-response tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 264-272.
• 16: Schmidt, R. A., Zelaznik, H., Hawkins, B., Frank J. S., & Quinn, J. T. (1979). Motor-output variability: A theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychological Review, 86, 415-451.
• 17: Sheridan, M. R. (1973). Effects of S-R compatibility and task difficulty on unimanual movement time. Journal of Motor Behavior, 5, 199-205.
• 18: Todor, J. i., & Doane, T. (1978). Handedness and hemispheric asymmetry in the control of movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 10, 295-300.
• 19: Quinn, J. T., Zelaznik, H. N., Hawkins, B., & McFarquhar, R. (1980). Target-size influences on reaction time with movement time controlled. Journal of Motor Behavior, 12, 239-261.
• 20: Welford, A. T. (1968). Fundamentals of skill. London: Methuen.
• 21: Woodworth, R. S. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movements. Psychological Review {monograph supplement}, 3(2, Whole No. 13).

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors

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: Theory and methods; Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation); Input devices and strategies (e.g., mouse, touchscreen)

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Performance

Keywords:
Fitts' law, computer input, hand comparisons