↓ Skip to main content

Augmented feedback influences upper limb reaching movement times but does not explain violations of Fitts' Law

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Augmented feedback influences upper limb reaching movement times but does not explain violations of Fitts' Law
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00800
Pubmed ID
Authors

John de Grosbois, Matthew Heath, Luc Tremblay

Abstract

Fitts' (1954) classic theorem asserts that the movement time (MT) of voluntary reaches is determined by amplitude and width requirements (i.e., index of difficulty: ID). Actions associated with equivalent IDs should elicit equivalent MTs regardless of the amplitude and/ or width requirements. However, contemporary research has reported that amplitude-based contributions to IDs yield larger increases in MTs than width-based contributions. This discrepancy may relate to the presence of augmented terminal feedback in Fitts' original research, which has not been provided in more recent investigations (e.g., Heath et al., 2011). To address this issue, participants performed reaching movements during two sessions wherein feedback regarding terminal accuracy was either provided or withheld. It was hypothesized that the absence of augmented terminal feedback would result in a stereotyped performance across target widths and explain the violation of Fitts' theorem. Yet, the results revealed distinct influences of amplitude- and width-based manipulations on MT, which also persisted across feedback conditions. This finding supports the assertion that the unitary nature of Fitts' theorem does not account for a continuous range of movement amplitudes and target widths. A secondary analysis was competed in an attempt to further investigate the violation of Fitts' Law. Based on error rates, participants were segregated into accuracy- and speed-prone groups. Additionally, target's IDs were recalculated based on each participant's performance using the effective target width (i.e., IDWe) instead of the nominal target width. When using MT data from the accuracy-prone group with this IDWe, the aforementioned violation was alleviated. Overall, augmented terminal feedback did not explain the violation of Fitts' theorem, although one should consider using the effective target width and participant's strategy in future investigations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 5 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Sports and Recreations 2 11%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,411,569
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,115
of 29,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,130
of 239,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#440
of 521 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 521 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.