Abstract

Fitts’ law models the relationship between amplitude, precision, and speed of rapid movements. It is widely used to quantify performance in pointing tasks, study human-computer interaction, and generally to understand perceptual-motor information processes, including research to model performance in isometric force production tasks. Applying Fitts’ law to an isometric grip force task would allow for quantifying grasp performance in rehabilitative medicine and may aid research on prosthetic control and design. We examined whether Fitts’ law would hold when participants attempted to accurately produce their intended force output while grasping a manipulandum when presented with images of various everyday objects (we termed this the implicit task). Although our main interest was the implicit task, to benchmark it and establish validity, we examined performance against a more standard visual feedback condition via a digital force-feedback meter on a video monitor (explicit task). Next, we progressed from visual force feedback with force meter targets to the same targets without visual force feedback (operating largely on feedforward control with tactile feedback). This provided an opportunity to see if Fitts’ law would hold without vision, and allowed us to progress toward the more naturalistic implicit task (which does not include visual feedback). Finally, we changed the nature of the targets from requiring explicit force values presented as arrows on a force-feedback meter (explicit targets) to the more naturalistic and intuitive target forces implied by images of objects (implicit targets). With visual force feedback the relation between task difficulty and the time to produce the target grip force was predicted by Fitts’ law (average r2 = 0.82). Without vision, average grip force scaled accurately although force variability was insensitive to the target presented. In contrast, images of everyday objects generated more reliable grip forces without the visualized force meter. In sum, population means were well-described by Fitts’ law for explicit targets with vision (r2 = 0.96) and implicit targets (r2 = 0.89), but not as well-described for explicit targets without vision (r2 = 0.54). Implicit targets should provide a realistic see-object-squeeze-object test using Fitts’ law to quantify the relative speed-accuracy relationship of any given grasper.

Highlights

  • Fitts’ law provides a model relating task difficulty to the time required to execute an action

  • We examined the overall behavior of the population, which was accomplished by averaging the index of difficulty (IDe) and time to peak force of each target across all participants

  • We found that isometric grip forces continued to follow Fitts’ law both without visual feedback and when conventional targets were replaced by implicit targets in the form of images of everyday objects

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Fitts’ law provides a model relating task difficulty to the time required to execute an action. Using a reciprocal aiming paradigm, Billon et al (2000) instructed participants to move a video-display cursor between targets by producing (pushing and pulling) force on an isometric joystick using a precision grip They (Billon et al, 2000) included 16 levels of the index of difficulty ranging between 2.74 and 6.44 bits and found that Fitts’ law provided a good fit to their data. Our goal with this study was to develop a procedure to quantify grasping performance in a realistic, functional task, represented by the implicit task (without visual force feedback and with naturalistic target objects) Such a procedure could have value for quantitative assessments of the performance of any type of grasper (biological, mechanical, or both) and could allow for comparisons between healthy normative grasping, grasping in various sensory-motor pathologies, and grasping with both conventional insensate prostheses and advanced sensorized prostheses. The implicit task would be expected to accommodate a range of motor performance abilities and operate without a ceiling effect because force output levels are self-selected and there are no explicitly imposed target widths

Participants
Testing Procedure
Statistical Methods
DISCUSSION
Findings
ETHICS STATEMENT
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call