Embed
Email

Sally

Document Sample

Shared by: hedongchenchen
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
0
posted:
12/3/2011
language:
English
pages:
47
ACTIVE Quarterly Meeting



May 2000





Institute of Behavioural Sciences,

University of Derby

Outline

• Touch target study

• Point at target study

• Future work

• Useful Field of View & ACTIVE

ACTIVE display could

potentially be implemented

in a variety of locations

Touch Study Aims

1. How accurately drivers can touch a

target in a variety of locations

– Implications for button size/ACTIVE display

layout





2. Is there a difference in accuracy in

different locations?

– Implications for button size/ACTIVE display

layout in different locations

3. Are there any trends in where people

tend to miss the target? e.g. often top

right quadrant

– implications for varying button shapes

over different locations





4. The time taken to touch a target

– Hand off the wheel/attention off the road





5. Total time to complete task

– Hand off the wheel/attention off the road

Potential Displays









S/W

Touch Study Subjects

• 30 subjects

• Within subjects design

• Age

– Range: 18 - 56

– Mean 29

– SD 9.31

• Gender: 33.3%male 66.7% female

• Driven a car: 93.3%

Seating Buck

• Difficult to do in actual car

• Seating buck mock-up of Daewoo

Nubira driving position

• Greater versatility in terms of camera

positions

Crosshair Board



• Areas 1-7





3 4 5



2 6

S/W

1 7

3 x 3 Arrangement of

Crosshairs (Front View)

Touch Study Camera Set-up

Steering

wheel

Camera

Camera

Crosshair

board Driver









Camera Camera

Steering Wheel Camera

Task Aim





“Aim for the centre of the

crosshairs & be as accurate &

as quick as you can”

Experimental Procedure

Overview

• Completed questionnaire &

introduction, consent form

• Practice session

• Explanation of procedure

• Complete actual study

Touch Study Procedure

1. Subject told which area to ‘touch’



2. Yellow flash seen in mirror



3. Touch first cross



4. Repeat 2 & 3 until completed area



5. Investigator informs next area until completed

randomised presentation of all areas x2

Individual Crosshair Rear View



Example 4

pin point quadrants









• 2mm spacing between concentric

circles

Crosshair Analysis

• Each crosshair target placed under a

camera and fed into a computer software

program

Crosshair Analysis









• Each pin point seen on the target was

then selected using a mouse

• mm from centre of cross

Timing Analysis

• Video analysis of:

– Time taken from flash to end position of

point at target

– Time taken from flash until hand returns

to the wheel

Touch Study Results

Accuracy: All data



30



10

mm









-30 -10 -10 10 30



-30

mm

Area 1



30

20

10

0

-30 -10 -10 10 30

-20

-30

Area 2



30

20

10

0

-30 -10 -10 10 30

-20

-30

Area 3



30

20

10

0

-30 -10 -10 10 30

-20

-30

Area 4



30

20

10

0

-30 -10 -10 10 30

-20

-30

Area 5



30

20

10

0

-30 -10 -10 10 30

-20

-30

Area 6



30

20

10

0

-30 -10 -10 10 30

-20

-30

Area 7



15

10

5

0

-30 -10 -5 10 30

-10

-15

Time taken to touch a Single

target

• Range: 3.27 sec

• Min mean time = 0.16sec

– Area 4, cross 14 (just in front of right

finger on s/w)

• Max mean time = 3.43: Area 2, cross

1 (LHS 2nd area up)

Mean time taken from flash

to target touch



1.7

Mean no. of secs









1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Area

Time taken to complete one

‘touch’ action

• Range: 4.73 sec

• Min mean time = 0.37sec

– Area 4, cross 14 (just in front of right

finger on s/w)

• Max mean time = 5.1sec

– Area 6, cross 9 (RHS 2nd area up)

Mean time taken from flash

to hand returning to s/w

Mean time in secs









2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Area

Study

• Pointing more appropriate to ACTIVE

• Pointing is different to touching

– No haptic feedback

– People tend to use their proprioception

and then vision to enhance accuracy

when pointing

Point Study Aims

1. How accurately drivers can point at a

target in a variety of locations

– Implications for button size/ACTIVE

display layout compared to touching

target

2. Is there a difference in accuracy in

different locations?

– Implications for button size/ACTIVE

display layout in different locations

3. Are there any trends in where people

tend to miss the target? e.g. often top

right quadrant

– Implications for varying button shapes

over different locations

4. The time taken to point to a target

– Hand off the wheel/attention off the road

– Driver method of movement to operate

ACTIVE - may make gross movement, then

corrective fine movement

5. Total time to complete task

– Hand off the wheel/attention off the road

Experimental Layout

Point Study Methodology

• Completed questionnaire, introduction &

consent form

• Practice session

• Explanation of procedure

• Complete actual study

Point Study Procedure

1. Subject told which area to ‘point’ at



2. Yellow flash seen in mirror



3. Point at first cross



4. Repeat 2 & 3 until completed area



5. Investigator informs next area until completed

randomised presentation of all areas x2

Measuring Pointing with:



1. Pointing Device: LED/lens attached to

underside of index finger

• Rear camera with infra red filter

recorded where light spot located, in

relation to centre of crosses, during

experiment

Pointing Device

LED & lens









30mm

• Markers attached to 3 finger joints

and fingertip on ‘back’ side of hand

and side nearest to body

• Cameras record

– finger’s position in space using a macro

– fingertip distance from board

Point Study Grids

Preliminary Results For

Point Study



• Study completed - 20Ss: analysis in

progress

• Pointing subject to greater error of

accuracy

• Implies larger ‘button’ sizes than current

research on button sizes

• Also consider vehicle

movement/vibration compared to

literature on size

• People stop at different distances

• Pointing tends to be a quicker action

than touching

Future Work

• Evaluation of Dundee GUI Interface

system

• Layout of interface:

– Grouping

– Menus

– Clutter

– Feedback



Related docs
Other docs by hedongchenchen
AMS11-AV-Order-form
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Rural Telephone Bank
Views: 5  |  Downloads: 0
04tbl2-32a
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
CG9 Licence No.
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
1996
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
2011 CATALOG
Views: 11  |  Downloads: 0
NEURO-_summary.doc - STJ PA 2012
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
1995-1996 Prepaid Health Plan Contract
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!