Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Aging on Small Target Selection with Touch Input

Sultana, Afroza, Moffatt, Karyn·2019·ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
DOI 10.1145/3300178
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Age-related declines in physical and cognitive function can result in target selection difficulties that hinder device operation. Previous studies have detailed the different types of target selection errors encountered, as well as how they vary with age and with input device for mouse and pen interaction. We extend this work to describe the types of age-related selection errors encountered with small touchscreen devices. Consistent with prior results, we found that older adults had longer target selection times, generated higher error rates, and encountered a broader range of selection difficulties (e.g., miss errors and slip errors) relative to a younger comparison group. However, in contrast to the patterns previously found with pen interaction, we found that miss error (i.e., both landing and lifting outside the target bounds) was a more common source of errors for older adults than slip error (i.e., landing on the target but slipping outside the target bounds before lifting). Moreover, aging influenced both miss and slip errors in our study of touch interaction, whereas for pen interaction, age has been found to influence only slip errors. These differences highlight the need to consider pen and touch interaction separately despite both being forms of direct input. Based on our findings, we discuss possible approaches for improving the accessibility of touch interaction for older adults.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3300178

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1037/0882-7974.4.2.235 · DOI
  2. 10.5555/1327552.1327929 · doi:10.5555/1327552.1327929
  3. K. W. Schaie . 2004. Cognitive aging . In Technology for Adaptive Aging, R. W. Pew and S. B. V. Hemel (Eds) . National Academies Press , Washington, DC , 43--63. K. W. Schaie. 2004. Cognitive aging. In Technology for Adaptive Aging, R. W. Pew and S. B. V. Hemel (Eds). National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 43--63.

Cited by

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Sultana, A., & Moffatt, K.
Affiliations
McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Venue
ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2019-02-11
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
1-35
ISSN
  • 1936-7228
  • 1936-7236
DOI
10.1145/3300178
Cited by
14
References
56
Language
en
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Funders
  • AGE-WELL Networks of Centres of Excellence, Canada (AW CRP 2015- WP4.3)
  • Fonds de Recherche du Quebec?Nature et Technologies (FRQNT)?Bourses de doctorat en recherché (2013-NC-164701)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN/418290-2012)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.