Sutter, C., & Oehl, M. (2010).

Of Age Effects and the Role of Psychomotor Abilities and Practice when Using Interaction Devices. In T. Marek, W.
Karwowski, & V. Rice (Eds.), Advances in Understanding Human Performance (pp. 757-766). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press – Taylor & Francis.

CHAPTER

Of Age Effects and the Role

of Psychomotor Abilities
and Practice when Using
Interaction Devices
Christine Sutter1 and Michael Oehl2
1
Department of Work and Cognitive Psychology, RWTH Aachen
University, Germany
2
Institute of Experimental Industrial Psychology, Leuphana University of
Lüneburg, Germany

ABSTRACT

Interacting with technical environments often challenges users in terms of cognitive

and psychomotor requirements. Considering the users’ developmental changes over
the lifespan, technical devices do often not satisfactorily meet the demands of
children or older adults. Recent evidence (e.g., Sutter and Ziefle, 2006) suggests
that these so-called age-effects do not originate from age in general, but from a lack
of practice in particular. In the present study we focused on fine psychomotor
abilities as a further factor that might modulate age effects. We surveyed twenty-
eight children and teenagers between 9 and 18 years of age. Fine psychomotor
abilities were assessed with a standardized motor performance test battery. Then,
participants performed point-click and point-drag-drop tasks with either a touchpad
or a mini-joystick. Results showed that fine psychomotor abilities were less matured
in children and that this was associated with a less efficient handling of the
interaction devices compared to the older group. However, taking mouse practice
into account age effects disappeared. Developmental changes over the lifespan and
their implications for an efficient use of interaction devices will be discussed.

Keywords: Touchpad, Mini-joystick, Children, Teenager, Development

2 Of Age Effects When Using Interaction Devices

INTRODUCTION

Interacting with technical environments often challenges users in terms of cognitive

and psychomotor requirements. Considering the users’ developmental changes over
the lifespan, technical devices do often not satisfactorily meet the demands of
children or older adults. Consequently, performance is inferior within these two age
groups compared to those of young and middle-aged adults (e.g., Armbruester et al.,
2007; Inkpen, 2001; Smith et al., 1999). Recent evidence (e.g., Sutter and Ziefle,
2006) lets us assume that these so-called age-effects do not originate from age in
general, but from a lack of practice in particular. Further findings (Barker et al.,
1990; Smith et al., 1999; Sutter and Ziefle, 2005) give reason that fine psychomotor
abilities are associated with input device performance, too. Both former studies
assessed manual and finger dexterity with the pegboard test (Tiffin, 1968).
Participants had to insert as many pegs as possible into the pegboard in a given time
interval. It was found that high finger and manual dexterity was associated with a
fast and accurate mouse performance. In a more recent study in our lab we used a
touchpad and a mini-joystick. Psychomotor abilities were assessed with the
“Motorische Leistungsserie” (= MLS by Schuhfried, 2002), a standardized motor
performance test battery (Figure 1). According to Fleishman’s structure of fine
psychomotor abilities (1972) the MLS evaluates six factors (Table 1): aiming,
steadiness, precision of arm-hand movement, manual dexterity and finger dexterity,
rate of arm and hand movements, and wrist-finger speed. Our results corroborated
once more, that manual/finger dexterity was highly associated with input device
performance (r = 0.51, p < 0.05). Wrist-finger speed also correlated with time of
cursor control (r = -0.53, p < 0.05) that means high wrist-finger speed was
associated with fast input operations.
We can conclude that fine psychomotor abilities are associated with successfully
using interaction devices. Furthermore, psychomotor abilities change over the
lifespan. We find worse performance in children in whom fine psychomotor
abilities are not fully matured, and in older adults in whom they are declining (e.g.,
Teipel, 1988). In sum, the motivation of the present study is to examine whether and
how fine psychomotor abilities modulate age-effects. According to previous studies
we will focus on manual/finger dexterity and wrist-finger speed as crucial factors
that are associated with interaction performance. We hypothesize a strong
correlation with movement time in that way, that children, whose psychomotor
abilities are less matured need more time for cursor operations, whereas teenagers,
whose psychomotor abilities are fully matured show faster cursor operations.

METHOD

In the present study we surveyed twenty-eight children and teenagers from 9 to 18

years of age. Fine psychomotor abilities were assessed with a standardized motor
performance test battery. Then, participants performed point-click and point-drag-
 BOOK TITLE 3

drop tasks with either a touchpad or a mini-joystick. The experiment lasted 1 h.

FINE PSYCHOMOTOR TASKS

We assessed the fine psychomotor abilities with the MLS and evaluated the factors
aiming, steadiness, precision of arm-hand movement, manual dexterity and finger
dexterity, rate of arm and hand movements, and wrist-finger speed in terms of
errors, error time, total time and number of hits (Table 1). Participants performed
the following five tasks with the right and the left hand in succession. They were
instructed to work as fast and accurate as possible.
• Steadiness: Insert and hold
the pen inside the smallest borehole (diameter
5.8 mm) for 32 s.
• Line tracking: Insert the pen
inside the groove and follow it from “start” to
“end” without any contact to the panel.
• Aiming: Hit each of the
circles with the pen.
• Tapping: Tap the pen as fast
and often as possible onto the square.
• Peg inserting: Take pegs and
insert them into the boreholes on the right
(right hand condition) or left side (left hand
condition) of the panel, respectively.

1
FIGURE 1.Motor performance test battery (MLS ).

Table 1 Psychomotor abilities with MLS tasks and dependent variables

Psychomotor ability MLS task Dependent variable

Aiming Aiming Error, error time, hit

Steadiness Steadiness Error, error time
Precision of arm-hand movement Line tracking Error, error time
Manual dexterity and finger dexterity Peg inserting Total time
Rate of arm and hand movements Aiming, Line tracking Total time
Wrist-finger speed Tapping Hit

1
http://www.schuhfried.at/de/produkte/wiener-testsystem-wts/testverfahren/spezielle-leistungstests/mls-
motorische-leistungsserie.html, 12.01.2010
4 Of Age Effects When Using Interaction Devices

TASKS FOR INTERACTION DEVICES

Participants used a laptop computer (Dell Inspiron 8100), connected to an external

15” TFT flat screen (Iiyama TXA 3841J) with a 1024 x 768 resolution. The input
devices integrated in the laptop were a touchpad, a flat 60 x 44 mm touch sensitive
panel and a mini-joystick, a small force-sensitive joystick placed between the “G”,
“H” and “B” keys on the keyboard. Two mouse buttons were arranged horizontally
in the wrist rest.
Participants were randomly assigned to operate either touchpad or mini-joystick.
The touchpad is an isotonic device. Its gain is a function of finger motion to cursor
motion. The mini-joystick represents an isometric device, i.e., the gain is a function
of finger force to cursor speed.
The point-click and the point-drag-drop task represent typical demands of
computer work. To meet demands of ecological validity, cursor actions varied from
easy (big and near target) to difficult (small and far target). A trial started with a
self-paced press on the space bar. The point-click task (Figure 2, subtask 1 alone)
comprised a movement of the cursor inside the target box and a following click with
the left mouse button. The point-drag-drop task consisted of several single actions
that were executed one after another (Figure 2, all subtasks). In a point-drag action
the centrally placed symbols were highlighted (subtasks 1 and 2). Then the object
was picked up and dragged and dropped inside the square target on the right side
(subtasks 3 and 4). For the drag actions participants were instructed to drag the
cursor by pressing the left mouse button. For every successful action a visual
feedback was given. Releasing the left mouse button at the end of subtask 4
completed the trial.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

FIGURE 2. Task types: point-click task (subtask 1 alone) and point-drag-drop task
(subtasks 1-4).

Participants were instructed to move the cursor as fast and as accurate as

possible, and to operate the input device with their dominant hand, the left mouse
button with their non-dominant hand. They worked throughout a block of point-
click tasks and a block of point-drag-drop tasks. Each block consisted of 96 trials
and additional 5 training trials in advance of each block. Performance was assessed
in terms of movement time and errors. Movement time was defined as the interval
 BOOK TITLE 5

from the onset of cursor movement to the final button press/release. Error
percentages were calculated on the basis of trials where the left mouse button was
pressed / released when the cursor was not inside the target box.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-eight children and teenagers (N = 28; 15 male) volunteered for the study.
The children’s group consisted of participants aged between 9 and 13 years (M = 11
years of age). The age of the teenager group ranged from 14 to 18 years (M = 15
years of age). In each age sample 14 participants were included. All participants
were regular computer users with a contact time of approximately M = 1 h per day
(SD = 0.64 h). The teenagers showed a significant longer contact time than the
children (1.32 vs. 0.72 h/d; F(1,20) = 9.41, p < 0.01). Neither of them had any or
only less experience with touchpad or mini-joystick.

RESULTS

EFFECTS OF AGE AND FINE MOTOR ABILITIES

Errors, error time, total time and number of hits observed in the MLS-tasks were
analyzed with two-tailed t-tests for independent groups (11 vs. 15 years old).
Right hand: For the factor aiming errors (0.6 vs. 0.9 errors), error time (each
0.03 s) and hits (each 20 hits) did not differ significantly between the 11 and 15
years old (p > 0.1). For the factor steadiness errors (10 vs. 5 errors; t(20.54) = 2.36,
p < 0.05) and error time (1 vs. 0.4 s; t(26)=1.87, p < 0.1) were higher for the 11
years old than for the 15 years old. The same pattern of results was found for the
factor precision of arm-hand movement. Errors (30 vs. 20 errors; t(26) = 2.17, p <
0.05) and error time (2.7 vs. 1.7 s; t(21.93) = 2.13, p < 0.05) were significantly
increased for the 11 years old. For the factor manual dexterity and finger dexterity
total time was also higher for the 11 years old than for the 15 years old (51 vs. 47 s;
t(26) = 2.83, p < 0.01). For the factor rate of arm and hand movements we found
marginally significant differences between the 11 and 15 years old in total time of
the aiming task (12 vs. 9 s; t(26) = 1.84, p < 0.1), but no differences in total time of
the line tracking task (42 vs. 49 s; p > 0.1). At least, the analysis of the factor wrist-
finger speed revealed a significantly lower number of hits for the 11 than for the 15
years old (166 vs. 186 hits; t(26) = 2.94, p < 0.01).
Left hand: For the factors aiming, steadiness, and wrist-finger speed a similar
pattern of results was observed for the left hand. Again, age differences were not
apparent in the factor aiming (each p > 0.1). However, for the factor steadiness
children showed a less accurate performance in terms of errors (20 vs. 6 errors;
t(15.42) = 2.58, p < 0.05) and error time (2 vs. 0.4 s; t(14.04) = 2.96, p < 0.05). And
also for the factor wrist-finger speed children were outperformed by teenagers (143
vs. 160 hits; t(26) = 2.39, p < 0.05). For the factor precision of arm-hand movement
6 Of Age Effects When Using Interaction Devices

we found marginally significant differences between the 11 and 15 years old in

errors of the line tracking task (44 vs. 35 errors; t(26) = 1.87, p < 0.1), but no
differences in error time in the same task (3.8 vs. 3.4 s; p > 0.1). The factor manual
dexterity and finger dexterity did not reveal any differences between age groups (53
vs. 50 s; p > 0.1). However, the factor rate of arm and hand movements was
significantly worse for the 11 than for the 15 years old in total time of the aiming
task (12.6 vs. 9.7 s; t(20.31)
(20.31) = 3.09, p < 0.01), but it was significantly better in total
time of the line tracking task (36.1 vs. 51.3 s; t(20.06) = 2.26, p < 0.05). Please note
that the better performance of the 11 years old in total time of the line tracking task
was due to a speed-accuracy
accuracy trade
trade-off,
off, since at the same time errors and error times
were substantially higher in the 11 than in the 15 years old.

EFFECTS OF AGE AND INPUT DEVICE PERFORMANCE

Movement times and error percentages observed in the point-click and point-dragdrag-
drop task (Figure 3)were
were analyzed with a 2 x 2 x 2 analysis of varia
variance
nce with the
subject factors age (11 vs. 15 years of age) and sensorimotor
between-subject
transformation (motion vs. force transformation of touchpad and m mini-joystick
joystick
respectively), and the within
within-subject factor task type (point-click vs. point-drag
drag-
drop).

FIGURE 3. Movement times (ms) and errors (%) for point

point-click and point-drag-drop
drop
task (black bars = children
children, grey bars = teenagers).
 BOOK TITLE 7

For movement times the ANOVA revea revealed significant main effects for the
factors age (F(1,24)
(1,24) = 4.40
4.40, p < 0.05) and task type (F(1,24) = 375.25, p < 0.010.01).
The factor sensorimotor transformation was marginally significant (F(1,24)(1,24) = 3.75
3.75,
p = 0.06). Movement times were generally 965 ms higher in children than in
teenagers (4981 vs. 4016 ms). In point-drag-drop drop tasks movement times
substantially rose by 4641 ms. This increase was more pronounced in the 11 year
old users than in the 15 year old user
users, yielding a significant interaction between
age and task type (F(1,24)
(1,24) = 6.65
6.65, p < 0.05). However, these age-related
related effects
totally diminished when the factor computer practice was included as a covariate in
the ANOVA. At the same time the factor sensorimotor transformation gathered
weight and revealed a significant impact on movement times ((F(1,24) = 6.31, p <
0.05).
The analysis of the error percentages showed only a significant effect for the
factor task type (F(1,24)
(1,24) = 64.81
64.81, p < 0.01). Other effects or interactions were not
significant. Errors remarkably increased by 28% from the point-click click to the point
point-
drag-drop task (8% vs. 36%).

FIGURE 4. Wrist-finger
finger speed of children (triangle) and teenagers (squares) as a
function of movement
vement time in the point
point-click task (left) and point-drag-drop
drop task
(right).

In the following section we examine

examined whether and how fine psychomotor
abilities – especially manual
manual/finger dexterity and wrist-finger speed – modulated
age-effects. Wee used rank ccorrelations (two-tailed)
tailed) between errors, error time, total
time and number of hits observed in the MLS MLS-tasks (right hand alone), ), and
movement times and errors in the pointpoint-click and point-drag-drop task. For wrist
finger speed we found high correlation
correlations with movement time in the point-click (rr =
8 Of Age Effects When Using Interaction Devices

-0.38, p < 0.05) and in the point-drag-drop task (r = -0.41, p < 0.05). The data are
depicted in Figure 4. The faster the wrist-finger speed was, in terms of many hits in
the tapping task, the faster was the cursor movement. Children were mostly
represented in the lower half of the distribution of hits, and teenagers in the upper
half. All other correlations did not reach significance.

DISCUSSION

The present study examined whether and how fine psychomotor abilities modulate
age effects when using interaction devices. With regard to previous studies (Barker
et al., 1990; Smith et al., 1999; Sutter and Ziefle, 2005) finger and manual dexterity
and wrist-finger speed are associated with input device performance. Consequently,
we assumed that if psychomotor abilities in children are less matured, this is
associated with a less efficient handling of the interaction devices compared to the
older group, in which psychomotor abilities are fully matured. The main finding
confirmed our hypothesis: Wrist-finger speed was mostly lower in children and
associated with slower input operations, and vice versa for teenagers. In general, the
significant correlation between wrist-finger speed and movement time when using
interaction devices corroborates findings from previous studies in our lab (Sutter
and Ziefle, 2005). Surprisingly, we could not find any significant association with
manual/finger dexterity in the present study. However, a closer look into the data
showed the same pattern of association, although considerably weaker (point-click
task r = 0.26, p = 0.17 and point-drag-drop task r = 0.33, p = 0.08), as observed in
earlier studies (Barker et al., 1990; Smith et al., 1999; Sutter and Ziefle, 2005) for
mouse, touchpad and mini-joystick.
A second finding was that age effects in the input device tasks diminished when
we took computer and mouse practice into account. This was also found in one of
our earlier studies for the computer mouse (Sutter and Ziefle, 2006). Teenagers
were mostly more experienced in interacting with mouse and computers than
children, but all participants were totally inexperienced with touchpad and mini-
joystick. The fact that computer/mouse practice benefited the use of a new
interaction device is remarkable. However, what cannot be answered at this point is,
if this is due to a transfer of general task and computer knowledge and/or to specific
motor skills.
As outlined in the introduction, ergonomic literature gives strong evidence for
distinct age-related declines in children and older adults using interaction devices.
These age differences were mostly observed to be stronger in complex and difficult
tasks than in simple tasks (e.g., Armbruester et al., 2007; Inkpen, 2001; Joiner et al.,
1998; Oehl et al., 2007). This was also the case in the present study. The
performance of children substantially decreased in the point-drag-drop task, and this
effect was stronger than for teenagers. As a reason for this we already discussed the
development of fine psychomotor abilities. The ability to fine motor adjustment and
to motor coordination becomes relevant for actions like double-/clicking, dragging
and dropping, in particular.
 BOOK TITLE 9

At least we observed a worse performance for the mini-joystick compared to the

touchpad. This is an already well-known finding when comparing force- versus
motion-transforming input devices (an overview is given by Sutter, 2007). The less
efficient handling of force-transforming input device seems to be totally
independent from fine psychomotor abilities. And it is recently more and more
discussed in the context of cognitive psychology and the cognitive processes
underlying the use of tools with sensorimotor transformations (e.g., Lukas et al.,
2009; Sutter et al., in press).
In sum, the present experiment showed that the observed age effects were
moderated by computer/mouse practice and the fine psychomotor ability wrist-
finger speed. Further studies should address the question of practice transfer and in
particular examine whether general task and computer knowledge or specific motor
skills benefit the use of a new input device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank Kathrin Wendler for supporting this research.

REFERENCES

Armbruester, C., Sutter, and C., Ziefle, M. (2007), Notebook input devices put to
the age test: The usability of trackpoint and touchpad for middle-aged adults.
Ergonomics, 50 (3), 426-445.
Barker, D., Carey, M.S., and Taylor, R.G. (1990), Factors underlying mouse
pointing performance. In E.J. Lovesey (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics (pp.
359-364). Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Fleishman, E.A. (1972), Structure and measurement of psychomotor abilities. In
R.N. Singer (Ed.), The psychomotor domain (pp. 78-196). Lea & Febiger,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Inkpen, K.M. (2001), Drag-and-drop versus point-click mouse interaction styles for
children. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 8, 1-33.
Joiner, R., Messer, D., Light, P., and Littleton, K. (1998), It is better to point for
young children: A comparison of children’s pointing and dragging. Computers
in Human Behavior, 14, 513-529.
Lukas, S., Brau, H., and Koch, I. (2009), Anticipatory movement compatibility for
virtual reality interaction devices. Behaviour & Information Technology, First
published on: 24 February 2009 (iFirst).
Oehl, M., Sutter, C., and Ziefle, M. (2007), Considerations on efficient touch
interfaces – How display size influences the performance in an applied
pointing task. In M.J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human Interface, Part I,
HCII 2007, LNCS 4557 (pp. 136-143). Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Schuhfried, G. (2002), Motorische Leistungsserie [Motor performance test battery
MLS]. Version 23. Schuhfried, Mödling, Austria.
Smith, M.W., Sharit, J., and Czaja, S.J.(1999), Aging, motor control and the
10 Of Age Effects When Using Interaction Devices

performance of computer mouse task. Human Factors, 41, 389-396.

Sutter, C. (2007), Sensumotor transformation of input devices and the impact on
practice and task difficulty. Ergonomics, 50 (12), 1999-2016.
Sutter, C., Müsseler, J., and Bardos, L. (in press), Effects of sensorimotor
transformations with graphical input devices. Behavior & Information
Technology.
Sutter, C., and Ziefle, M. (2005), Psychomotor user characteristics as predictors for
a successful usage of small input devices. In Proceedings of the HCI
International 2005. Mira Digital Publishing, St.Louis, MO.
Sutter, C., and Ziefle, M. (2006), Impact of practice and age on motor performance
of mouse users. In Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association
16th World Congress. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Teipel, D. (1988), Diagnostik koordinativer Fähigkeiten. Eine Studie zur Struktur
und querschnittlich betrachteten Entwicklung fein- und grobmotorischer
Leistungen [Evaluation of coordination skills. A study for the structure and
cross-sectional observed development of fine and gross psychomotor
performance]. Profil, München, Germany.
Tiffin, J. (1968), Purdue pegboard: Examiner manual. Science Research
Associates, Chicago, IL.