scholarly journals Quantitative and Comparative Assessment of Learning in a Tongue-Operated Computer Input Device

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 747-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Yousefi ◽  
Xueliang Huo ◽  
E. Veledar ◽  
M. Ghovanloo
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Assessment ◽  
Input Device ◽  
Assessment Of Learning ◽  
Computer Input

Adjustment of Computer Input Device for Patients With Tetraplegia by Using a Mouse Cursor Locus Image

2009 ◽  
Vol 58 (7) ◽  
pp. 2094-2101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Tanimoto ◽  
Y. Rokumyo ◽  
K. Furusawa ◽  
A. Tokuhiro ◽  
H. Ukida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Input Device ◽  
Mouse Cursor ◽  
Computer Input

Comparing Computer Input Devices Using Kinematic Variables

2005 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 711-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Slocum ◽  
Alex Chaparro ◽  
Daniel McConnell ◽  
Michael Bohan
Keyword(s):  
Partial Correlation ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Primary Phase ◽  
Movement Behavior ◽  
Input Device ◽  
Input Devices ◽  
Computer Input ◽  
Computer Input Devices ◽  
Speed Accuracy ◽  
Accuracy Tradeoff

Throughput (TP) is a global measure of input device efficiency but provides little information about user's movement behavior when interacting with a device. Psychomotor models of movement provide a framework from which to develop new “during” movement variables that can be used to explain why efficiency differences occur. Data from a previous study examining the usability of a mouse, trackball and RollerMouse™ was re-examined using TP and the kinematic variables peak velocity of the primary movement (PV) and proportion of total distance traveled in primary phase (%PMD). Partial correlation analysis found %PMD and PV to be significantly related to TP and negatively related with each other, suggesting a “speed/accuracy” tradeoff. Further analysis confirmed the variables were useful in discriminating between devices and found that the most efficient device was less constrained by the “speed/accuracy” tradeoff. It was concluded that kinematic variables offer a useful way of understanding efficiency differences between devices.

Remote media vision-based computer input device

1991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamid R. Arabnia ◽  
Ching-Yi Chen
Keyword(s):  
Input Device ◽  
Computer Input

A Comparison of Computer Input Devices: Linus Pen, Mouse, Cursor Keys and Keyboard

1989 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 330-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Renee Mahach
Keyword(s):  
Handwriting Recognition ◽  
Data Entry ◽  
Recognition System ◽  
Input Device ◽  
Input Devices ◽  
Mouse Cursor ◽  
Computer Input ◽  
Computer Input Devices ◽  
Speed And Accuracy ◽  
Optical Mouse

Four input devices were compared in a data entry task by speed and accuracy scores. The input devices were: Linus pen (a handwriting recognition system), optical mouse, cursor keys, and alphabetic keys on a keyboard. Data entry consisted of twenty 5-letter words and 100 single letters. Two different screen designs (QWERTY and ALPHA) were used for the mouse and cursor keys conditions. Results showed the keyboard to be fastest and the cursor keys to be slowest in data entry. The mouse and Linus pen had comparable latency scores. Overall, five-letter words were entered faster than five single letters. Latency decreased over trials, and ALPHA conditions required more time than QWERTY conditions. The Linus pen was the least accurate input device. The cursor QWERTY condition produced the highest accuracy scores for letter entry while the keyboard produced the highest accuracy scores for word entry.

Development of a computer input device for patients with tetraplegia

2005 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshio Tanimoto ◽  
Yasuhiko Rokumyo ◽  
Kazunari Furusawa ◽  
Akihiro Tokuhiro ◽  
Yasuo Suzuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Input Device ◽  
Computer Input
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document