Conference Paper2020Cited by 2

An Investigation Into The Level Of Valence Offered By Different Pointing Devices Against Challenging Tasks

Eshtiak Ahmed, Ashraful Islam, Mohsena Ashraf, Md Ibrahim Khan, Atiqul Islam Chowdhury, Asif Karim

2020 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS)

IEEE, pp. 129–134

DOI: 10.1109/icacsis51025.2020.9263179URL

Abstract

Pointing devices are the primary media of interac-tion between humans and computers. The three most popular pointing devices used in computers (both portable and non-portable) are mouse, touchpad and nubs (joystick). They have their different advantages and use cases while being targeted to different user groups. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the aforementioned pointing devices have different effects on human valence. A total of 12 participants were recruited for the experiment. Each participant completed a pointing reaction test with every pointing device aforementioned, where they selected as many randomly appearing circles as possible in a given amount of time. Then, subjective ratings of emotional valence and arousal were collected, and the effects of the pointing device used on these ratings were investigated. Our study shows that the valence rating of using the mouse were significantly higher in challenging scenarios, compared to the likes of touchpad and nub.

Keywords

  • Touchpad
  • pointing devices
  • Joystick
  • Emotional valence
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Arousal
  • mice
  • challenging tasks

CCDS Authors

Eshtiak Ahmed
Eshtiak Ahmed

Eshtiak Ahmed

  • Collaborator, HCI Wing

Doctoral Researcher

Gamification Group

Tampere University, Finland

Published at

UbiComp, ICIP, HCII, IEEE Access

Research Interests

Human-Computer Interaction, Human-Robot Interaction, Gamification and Assistive Technologies

Ashraful Islam, PhD
Ashraful Islam

Ashraful Islam, PhD

  • Center Director, CCDS
  • Director, HCI Wing

Assistant Professor

Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Independent University, Bangladesh (IUB)

Published at

CHI, UIST, UbiComp, IJCNN, ICIP, HCII, ICDMW, BLP, IEEE Internet of Things Journal, JMIR, JMIR Human Factors, JMIR Formative Research, IEEE Access, Smart Agricultural Technology, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, PLOS ONE

Research Interests

Human-Computer Interaction, AI for Social Good, AI for Public Health, AI for Impact

References

  1. 1.Martin Bland, Doug Altman. (1995). Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ, 310(6973), 170[10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170]
  2. 2.Donald W. Zimmerman, Bruno D. Zumbo. (1993). Relative Power of the Wilcoxon Test, the Friedman Test, and Repeated-Measures ANOVA on Ranks. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1), 75–86[10.1080/00220973.1993.9943832]
  3. 3.Michal Luria, Guy Hoffman, Oren Zuckerman. (2017). Comparing Social Robot, Screen and Voice Interfaces for Smart-Home Control. , 580–628[10.1145/3025453.3025786]
  4. 4.Teah‐Marie Bynion, Matthew T. Feldner. (2017). Self-Assessment Manikin. , 1–3[10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_77-1]
  5. 5.Dan Liao, Lin Shu, Guodong Liang, Yingxuan Li, Yue Zhang, Wenzhuo Zhang, Xiangming Xu. (2019). Design and Evaluation of Affective Virtual Reality System Based on Multimodal Physiological Signals and Self-Assessment Manikin. IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology, 4(3), 216–224[10.1109/jerm.2019.2948767]
  6. 6.B. Geethanjali, K. Adalarasu, A Hemapraba, S. Pravin Kumar, R Rajasekeran. (2017). Emotion analysis using SAM (Self-Assessment Manikin) scale. Biomedical Research-tokyo, 18–24
  7. 7.Adrian Ramcharitar, Robert J. Teather. (2017). A Fitts' Law Evaluation of Video Game Controllers. , 2860–2866[10.1145/3027063.3053213]
  8. 8.Tianhua Xie, Mingliang Cao, Zhigeng Pan. (2020). Applying Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) to Evaluate the Affective Arousal Effects of VR Games. , 134–138[10.1145/3383812.3383844]
  9. 9.Anil Ufuk Batmaz, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. (2019). Effects of 3D Rotational Jitter and Selection Methods on 3D Pointing Tasks. , 1687–1692[10.1109/vr.2019.8798038]
  10. 10.Andréia Sias Rodrigues, Vinícius Krüger da Costa, Rafael Cunha Cardoso, Márcio Bender Machado, Marcelo Bender Machado, Tatiana Aires Tavares. (2017). Evaluation of a Head-Tracking Pointing Device for Users with Motor Disabilities. , 9, 156–162[10.1145/3056540.3056552]
  11. 11.Tzu‐Hsien Lee. (2005). Ergonomic Comparison of Operating a Built-in Touch-Pad Pointing Device and a Trackball Mouse on Posture and Muscle Activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101(3), 730–736[10.2466/pms.101.3.730-736]
  12. 12.Anton Nijholt, Andrea Minuto. (2017). Smart material interfaces: Playful and artistic applications. , 265, 1–6[10.1109/icivpr.2017.7890882]
  13. 13.Yang‐Kun Ou. (2020). User preference and usability assessments of touchpad surface tactile in laptops. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 30(4), 311–317[10.1002/hfm.20842]
  14. 14.Angie Avera, Christy Harper, Natalia Russi-Vigoya, Stephen Stoll. (2016). Effects of Touchpad Size on Pointing and Gestural Input Area and Performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 825–829[10.1177/1541931213601188]
  15. 15.Eshtiak Ahmed, Md. Mahade Hasan, Mirza Omar Faruk, Muhammad Farhad Hossain, Md. Arifur Rahman, Ashraful Islam. (2019). Icons For the Mass: An Approach Towards Text Free Smart Interface. 2019 1st International Conference on Advances in Science, Engineering and Robotics Technology (ICASERT), 1–4[10.1109/icasert.2019.8934634]
  16. 16.David F. Loricchio. (1992). A Comparison of Three Pointing Devices: Mouse, Cursor Keys, and a Keyboard-Integrated Pushbutton. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 36(4), 303–305[10.1177/154193129203600409]

Cited By

  1. 1.Musfiqur Rahman Foysal, Nazmun Nessa Moon, Ms. Asma Mariam, Israt Jahan, Fernaz Narin Nur. (2021). Advanced Plant Disease Detection By Using Tensorflow. 2021 International Conference on Smart Generation Computing, Communication and Networking (SMART GENCON), 1–4[10.1109/smartgencon51891.2021.9645807]
  2. 2.Jarin Nooder, Ashrarfi Mahbuba, Shayla Sharmin, Nazmun Nessa Moon, Lamisha Haque Poushy, Salauddin Ahmed Bhuiyan, Samia Nawshin. (2021). Machine Learning Approach to Find Students' Best Place to Study: Home vs Hostel. , 3, 123–129[10.1109/icitech50181.2021.9590130]
← All publications