Performance and Comfort When Using

Motion-Controlled Tools in Complex Tasks

Ines Ann Heber1, Michael Oehl2, and Christine Sutter3

1
University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Department of Neurology, Section Neuropsychology,
Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany
heber@neuropsych.rwth-aachen.de
2
Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Institute of Experimental Industrial Psychology,
Wilschenbrucher Weg 84a, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
oehl@uni.leuphana.de
3
RWTH Aachen University, Department of Work and Cognitive Psychology,
Jägerstr. 17-19, 52056 Aachen, Germany
christine.sutter@psych.rwth-aachen.de

Abstract. The use of interaction tools in modern work often challenges the human
motor system, especially when these tools create awkward postures and discomfort
(e.g., mouse arm syndrome). The question whether the trackball is a serious
alternative to the mouse was evaluated in this experimental study in terms of motor
performance, usability and comfort. In an applied pointing-selection task we varied
gain and task difficulty. Results showed a considerably stronger impact of gain and
task difficulty on the trackball than on the mouse, especially for the high gain
trackball performance slowed down. Second, usability ratings were significantly
better for the mouse than for the trackball (independent of the experimental
condition). Finally, while the discomfort after mouse usage rose notably, trackball
usage led to an even bigger increase in perceived discomfort.

Keywords: Human-computer interaction, input devices, Fitts’ Law, repetitive

strain injury.

1 Introduction
The mouse is still the most widely used input device [1] since it is regarded as fast,
precise and easy to handle. However, a rising amount of users experiences discomfort
of the upper extremities. These mouse related repetitive strain injuries (RSI) are
caused by repetitive movements, extreme wrist positions as well as high muscular
load and tension [2, 3]. In recent years, manufactures of input devices have reacted to
the rise of mouse-related RSI by developing alternatives considered to be less
hazardous concerning muscular strain. Especially the thumb-controlled trackball has
been advertized as being a healthy alternative by minimizing strain on the hand, wrist
and arm. However, little is know about its efficiency, accuracy and muscular load.
Furthermore, no analysis evaluates the trackball as a serious alternative to the mouse
by comparing performance measures so far. Accordingly, the present study aims to
provide a detailed analysis of motor performance and comfort of trackball and mouse
and thus to evaluate the proposed ergonomic advantage of the trackball.

C. Stephanidis (Ed.): Posters, Part II, HCII 2011, CCIS 174, pp. 335–339, 2011.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
336 I.A. Heber, M. Oehl, and C. Sutter

2 Method
Participants: N = 30 students (20 male, 10 female, mean age: 22 years) from the RWTH
Aachen University. The two experimental groups were controlled for confounding effects
in age, gender and ex ante muscular load based on preliminary questioning.
Apparatus and stimuli: Participants sat in front of a desktop computer (266 MHz,
Pentium III) and a 15” TFT screen (1024 x 768 resolution), equipped with either a
thumb-controlled trackball (Logitech TrackMan Wheel©) or a standard mouse
(Logitech MouseMan Wheel©). Derived from pre-testing, both device drivers were set
as to produce the same cursor gain (pixel per second ratio). For the trackball medium
speed was set at 5151 p/s (level 4) and fast speed at 5844 p/s (level 9). For the mouse
medium speed was set at 4751 p/s (level 5) and fast speed at 5757 p/s (level 10).
The task consisted of a serial point-click task (in conformance with ISO 9241-9,
2000) [4] and included moving a cross-hair cursor to a black square and to select the
target by pressing the left button. A task consisted of 8 serial selections. Targets
appeared in two sizes (2.5 and 5 mm) and at two distances (25 and 50 mm). The
combination of target distance (near, far) and size (small, big) resulted in three
possible movement difficulties (= Index of Difficulty, ID) according to Fitts’ law [4]:
easy (ID = 2.6 bits), i.e., big and near target; medium (ID = 3.5 bits), i.e., big and far
target or small and near target, respectively; hard (ID = 4.4 bits), i.e., small and far
target. In order to exclude confounding effects of movement direction, the starting
position of the cursor was varied: the cursor could appear at 45°, 90°, 135°, 225°,
270°, 315°, or 360° relative to the target.
Procedure: In Experiment 1 n = 15 participants performed the task with the thumb-
controlled trackball. Participants completed one block of trials with medium and one
block with high cursor speed. The order of speed conditions was counterbalanced
across participants. Each block consisted of 48 training trials and 16 experimental
trials. Subjects were instructed to work as fast and accurate as possible. The
independent variables were cursor speed (medium vs. high) and ID (2.6, 3.5 small, 3.5
big vs. 4.4 bits). The dependent variables were movement time (MT; onset of cursor
movement to target selection) and clicking errors (selections outside the target). After
each block, participants rated the devices’ usability on a 6-point scale (1 = very easy
to 6 = very hard). Muscular discomfort was rated before and after the experiment on a
category partitioning scale [5] from 0 = no discomfort at all to 50 = severe discomfort.
In Experiment 2 n = 15 participants worked with the standard mouse. Procedures and
variables were the same as described for Experiment 1.

3 Results

3.1 Experiment 1: Trackball

For the MT the 2 x 4 ANOVA (factors: “cursor speed”, “ID”) revealed significant
main effects of cursor speed and ID (each p < .01). As depicted in Figure 1, MT
increased by 14% with the fast cursor speed. An increase of ID also led to a rise in
MT by 10% at medium and 13% at fast cursor speed. Though speed and difficulty did
 Performance and Comfort When Using Motion-Controlled Tools in Complex Tasks 337

Fig. 1. Mean MT (ms) for trackball and mouse as a function of cursor speed and ID (bits)

not interact (p = .64). The analysis of clicking errors revealed no significant effects.
Participants responded quite accurately with a mean error rate below 5%.

3.2 Experiment 2: Mouse

For the MT (Figure 1) the 2 x 4 ANOVA (factors: “cursor speed”, “ID”) revealed
significant main effects of cursor speed (p < .01) and ID (p < .05). MT increased by
30 ms (3%) at the fast cursor speed, and also with ID by 447 ms (36%) at medium
cursor speed, and 437 ms (35%) at fast cursor speed. Though speed and difficulty
again did not interact (p = .85). The analysis of clicking errors revealed no significant
effect of cursor speed, but of ID. Although participants responded quite accurately
with a mean error rate below 5%, clicking errors slightly increased with higher IDs
(p < .05).

3.3 Comparison of Mouse and Trackball Performance

Motor performance: The data was analyzed by a 2 x 2 x 4 ANOVA with the between-
subject factor “input device” and the within-subject factors “cursor speed” and “ID”.
The results showed significant main effects of input device, cursor speed and ID (each
p < .01). MT were generally 755 ms shorter for the mouse and this advantage was
more pronounced within the fast speed condition (Δ 880 ms, p < .01) compared to the
medium speed condition (Δ 631 ms, p < .01) yielding a significant interaction of input
device and cursor speed (p < .01). Thus, trackball MT were significantly stronger
influenced by cursor speed than mouse MT. Aditionally, we found a more distinct
338 I.A. Heber, M. Oehl, and C. Sutter

increase of MT as a function of ID for the trackball (783 ms = 38%) than for the
mouse (442 ms = 35%) statistically confirmed by the significant interaction of input
device by ID (p < .01). Interestingly, the medium IDs (big and far target vs. small and
near target) differed with regard to MT in both cursor speed conditions for both
trackball and mouse. According to Fitts’ Law, both size and distance combinations
should result in equal MT. However, the combination of small target and short target
distance did result in significantly increased MT compared to the other medium task
difficulty for both cursor speeds and both trackball (p < .05) and mouse (p < .01).
Comfort: Mean usability rating for the mouse was 1.9 (easy) and for the trackball it
was 3.7 (rather difficult). The medium cursor speed was rated to be rather easy for the
mouse (2.5) and difficult for the trackball (4.0). The fast cursor speed was rated to be
easy for the mouse (2.2) and difficult for the trackball (4.3). While discomfort after
mouse usage rose by 12 points, trackball usage lead to a significantly bigger increase
in perceived discomfort (23 points). Mouse users complained about an increase in
discomfort in the hand whereas trackball users experienced increasing discomfort in
the fingers, elbow, shoulder and neck.

4 Conclusions
The present study aimed to examine the trackball as an ergonomic alternative to the
mouse. In our study, thumb-controlled trackball performance was significantly less
effective than mouse performance. Both cursor speed and ID had (highly) significant
effects on MT for both input devices, but trackball performance suffered significantly
greater from fast cursor speed than mouse performance, and MT in the trackball were
overall significantly longer than in the mouse.
Effects of input device are recently more and more discussed in the light of
sensorimotor transformations and compatibility. Findings give reason that trackball
users obviously face a rather difficult transformation, since device movement is rotary
and display movement linear [6, 7, 8]. In the mouse, device movement and cursor
motion correspond highly, which results in better performance. These transformation
issues might have resulted in worse trackball usability ratings in our study.
Additionally, muscular discomfort whilst using the trackball was decidedly higher
than for the mouse. While the trackball seemed to reduce discomfort of the hand, it
increased for the arm, shoulder and the neck, supposedly due to an increase of static
load. Nevertheless, results indicate that the trackball could be a useful alternative in
terms of input device variability: Switching between devices might reduce some of
the negative effects of both. Still the trackball should probably be used for simpler
tasks and be operated with a slower cursor speed than the mouse.
A further finding is worth to be discussed: In all conditions we found a significant
difference in MT in both medium IDs. This result contradicts Fitts’ Law by indicating
that target size seems to have a stronger influence on movement difficulty than target
distance, while according to Fitts’ Law, they should be equally difficult. Our results
are in correspondence to earlier studies, which also reported a greater impact of target
size on performance [9, 10].
 Performance and Comfort When Using Motion-Controlled Tools in Complex Tasks 339

In conclusion, ergonomic guidelines can be derived for the optimized application

of motion-controlled interaction tools in laparoscopic surgery [11], virtual reality (for
training and product development) or teleoperation.

Acknowledgments. We wish to thank Heidrun Glienke and Martina Ziefle for

research support.

References
1. Hastings, S., Woods, V., Haslam, R.A., Buckle, P.: Health risks from mice and other non-
keyboard input devices. In: McCabe, P.T., Hanson, M.A., Robertson, S.A. (eds.)
Contemporary Ergonomics, pp. 312–316. Taylor & Francis, London (2000)
2. Burgess-Limerick, R., Shemmell, J., Scadden, R., Plooy, A.: Wrist posture during
computer pointing device use. Clinical Biomechanics 14, 280–286 (1999)
3. Keir, P.J., Bach, J.M., Rempel, D.: Effects of computer design and task on carpal tunnel
pressure. Ergonomics 42, 1350–1360 (1999)
4. ISO 9241-9: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals – Part
9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices. International Organization for
Standardization. Beuth, Berlin (2000)
5. Heller, O.: Hörfeldaudiometrie mit dem Verfahren der Kategorienunterteilung (KU),
Suprathreshold audiometry using the method of category partitioning (CP). Psychologische
Beiträge 27, 478–493 (1985)
6. Proctor, R.W., Vu, K.-P.L.: Stimulus-Response-Compatibility Principles: Data, Theory,
and Application. CRC Press - Taylor & Francis Group, New York (2006)
7. Sutter, C.: Sensumotor transformation of input devices and the impact on practice and task
difficulty. Ergonomics 50, 1999–2016 (2007)
8. Sutter, C., Oehl, M., Armbrüster, C.: Practice and carryover effects when using small
interaction devices. Applied Ergonomics 42, 437–444 (2011)
9. Sheridan, M.R.: A reappraisal of Fitts law. Journal of Motor Behavior 11, 179–188 (1979)
10. Sutter, C., Ziefle, M.: Psychomotor efficiency in users of notebook input devices:
Confirmation and restrictions of Fitts’ law as an evaluative tool for user-friendly design.
In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, pp.
773–777 (2004)
11. Herring, S.R., Trejo, A.E., Hallbeck, M.S.: Evaluation of four cursor control devices
during a target acquisition task for laparoscopic tool control. Applied Ergonomics 41, 47–
57 (2010)