Limits...
Combining eye and hand in search is suboptimal.

Liesker H, Brenner E, Smeets JB - Exp Brain Res (2009)

Bottom Line: Without distractors, search times were faster for visual search than for haptic search.With many visual distractors, search times were longer for visual than for haptic search.The results are consistent with several alternative accounts, for instance with vision and touch searching independently at the same time.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University, Van der Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
When performing everyday tasks, we often move our eyes and hand together: we look where we are reaching in order to better guide the hand. This coordinated pattern with the eye leading the hand is presumably optimal behaviour. But eyes and hands can move to different locations if they are involved in different tasks. To find out whether this leads to optimal performance, we studied the combination of visual and haptic search. We asked ten participants to perform a combined visual and haptic search for a target that was present in both modalities and compared their search times to those on visual only and haptic only search tasks. Without distractors, search times were faster for visual search than for haptic search. With many visual distractors, search times were longer for visual than for haptic search. For the combined search, performance was poorer than the optimal strategy whereby each modality searched a different part of the display. The results are consistent with several alternative accounts, for instance with vision and touch searching independently at the same time.

Show MeSH
The predictions of our three models for the median search times in combined search (averaged over the 10 participants with standard error). The data from Fig. 3 are shown in grey (without error bars) for comparison
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2721960&req=5

Fig4: The predictions of our three models for the median search times in combined search (averaged over the 10 participants with standard error). The data from Fig. 3 are shown in grey (without error bars) for comparison

Mentions: Figure 4 shows the same data (grey lines) together with the predictions of our three models (black lines) for the combined search task. From a comparison of the data with the models, we conclude that, apart from the fact that for large numbers of items the measured search times are slightly longer than predicted, performance is described very well by the Parallel and Independent model. Based on the paired t test for the conditions with 6, 12 and 24 items, we can reject both the Fastest Modality model (p = 0.026) and the Optimal model (p < 0.0001). The Parallel and Independent model could not be rejected (p = 0.93).Fig. 4


Combining eye and hand in search is suboptimal.

Liesker H, Brenner E, Smeets JB - Exp Brain Res (2009)

The predictions of our three models for the median search times in combined search (averaged over the 10 participants with standard error). The data from Fig. 3 are shown in grey (without error bars) for comparison
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2721960&req=5

Fig4: The predictions of our three models for the median search times in combined search (averaged over the 10 participants with standard error). The data from Fig. 3 are shown in grey (without error bars) for comparison
Mentions: Figure 4 shows the same data (grey lines) together with the predictions of our three models (black lines) for the combined search task. From a comparison of the data with the models, we conclude that, apart from the fact that for large numbers of items the measured search times are slightly longer than predicted, performance is described very well by the Parallel and Independent model. Based on the paired t test for the conditions with 6, 12 and 24 items, we can reject both the Fastest Modality model (p = 0.026) and the Optimal model (p < 0.0001). The Parallel and Independent model could not be rejected (p = 0.93).Fig. 4

Bottom Line: Without distractors, search times were faster for visual search than for haptic search.With many visual distractors, search times were longer for visual than for haptic search.The results are consistent with several alternative accounts, for instance with vision and touch searching independently at the same time.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University, Van der Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
When performing everyday tasks, we often move our eyes and hand together: we look where we are reaching in order to better guide the hand. This coordinated pattern with the eye leading the hand is presumably optimal behaviour. But eyes and hands can move to different locations if they are involved in different tasks. To find out whether this leads to optimal performance, we studied the combination of visual and haptic search. We asked ten participants to perform a combined visual and haptic search for a target that was present in both modalities and compared their search times to those on visual only and haptic only search tasks. Without distractors, search times were faster for visual search than for haptic search. With many visual distractors, search times were longer for visual than for haptic search. For the combined search, performance was poorer than the optimal strategy whereby each modality searched a different part of the display. The results are consistent with several alternative accounts, for instance with vision and touch searching independently at the same time.

Show MeSH