Difference in operation of Mouse and Touchscreen in older adults

  • Anika Steinert Geriatrics Research Group, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
  • Marten Haesner Geriatrics Research Group, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
  • Julie Lorraine O`Sullivan Geriatrics Research Group, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
  • Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen Geriatrics Research Group, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Keywords: input device, tablet, computer usage, seniors, human-computer-interaction

Abstract

Within the present study, an investigation with 50 older adults aged over 60 years was conducted. One aim of the study was to identify differences in usage of an internet platform for cognitive training with two different input devices. For this purpose, the subjects had to solve tasks on both PC and tablet computers. The success rate and the amount of time required to solve the tasks were recorded in a standardized manner. Additionally, participants were asked about the subjective advantages of both terminal devices and about their general preference. Overall, we found hardly significant differences in success rates and task-solving time. Contrary to other studies, where participants had to choose a defined target or perform a short specific task the older adults in the present study made nearly the same number of mistakes and needed almost the same time for solving the assigned tasks when using the PC and the tablet.

References

[1] Koopman-Boyden PG, Reid SL. Internet/e-mail usage and well-being among 65-84 year olds in New Zealand: Policy implications. Educ Gerontol. 2009;35(11):990–1007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03601270902917745
[2] Gerber E. The Benefits of and Barriers to Computer Use for Individuals Who Are Visually Impaired. J Vis Impair Blind. 2003;97(9):1–28.
[3] Taveira A, Choi S. Review Study of Computer Input Devices and Older Users. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2009;25(5):455–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447310902865040
[4] Segrist KA. Attitudes of Older Adults Toward a Computer Training Program. Educ Gerontol. 2004;30(7):563–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03601270490466958
[5] Durkin K. Videogames and young people with developmental disorders. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14(2):122–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019438
[6] Kato PM. Video games in health care: Closing the gap. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14(2):113–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019441
[7] Raessens J, (publisher). Handbook of computer game studies. First paperback ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 2011. 451 p.
[8] Forlines C, Wigdor D, Shen C, Balakrishnan R. Direct-touch vs. Mouse Input for Tabletop Displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2007 [cited 7. April 2014]. S. 647–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240726
[9] Nielsen J. Mouse vs. Finger as Input Device. 2012. online: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/mouse-vs-fingers-input-device/
[10] Holzinger A. User-Centered Interface Design for disabled and elderly people: First experiences with designing a patient communication system (PACOSY). In: Computers helping people with special needs [Internet]. Springer; 2002 [cited 8. April 2014]. S. 33–40. online: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-45491-8_8
[11] Häikiö J, Wallin A, Isomursu M, Ailisto H, Matinmikko T, Huomo T. Touch-based User Interface for Elderly Users. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2007 [cited 7th April 2014]. S. 289–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1377999.1378021
[12] Neyer FJ, Felber J, Gebhardt C. Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft. Diagnostica. 2012;58(2):87–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000067
[13] Hassenzahl M. Hedonic, Emotional, and Experiential Perspectives on Product Quality. In: Ghaoui C, Herausgeber. Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction. IGI Global; 2005 [cited 13th May 2013]. S. 266–72. online: http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/hedonic-emotional-experiential-perspectives-product/13133
[14] Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int J Hum-Comput Interact. 2008;24(6):5774–594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776
[15] Zijlstra FR., Doorn L. The Construction of a Scale to Measure Perceived Effort. Technical Report. Delft University of Technology; 1985.
[16] Meyer S, Cohen O, Nilsen E. Device comparisons for goal-directed drawing tasks. In: Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems [Internet]. ACM; 1994 [cited 11th April 2014]. S. 251–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/259963.260468
[17] Sears A, Shneiderman B. High precision touchscreens: design strategies and comparisons with a mouse. Int J Man-Mach Stud. 1991;34(4):593–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90037-8
[18] Robert PH, König A., Amieva H., Andrieu S., Bremond F., Bullock R., et. al., Recommendations for the use of Serious Games in people with Alzheimer’s Disease, related disorders and frailty. Front Aging Neurosci. 2014 [cited 9th September 2015];6. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00054
Published
2015-12-07
How to Cite
Steinert, A., Haesner, M., O`SullivanJ. L., & Steinhagen-Thiessen, E. (2015). Difference in operation of Mouse and Touchscreen in older adults. International Journal of Serious Games, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v2i4.70
Section
Letters to the Editor

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.