↓ Skip to main content

Fitts’ Law in the Control of Isometric Grip Force With Naturalistic Targets

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Fitts’ Law in the Control of Isometric Grip Force With Naturalistic Targets
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00560
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zachary C. Thumser, Andrew B. Slifkin, Dylan T. Beckler, Paul D. Marasco

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Unspecified 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Master 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 20 28%
Unspecified 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 18 25%
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 26 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,941,271
of 23,036,991 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,795
of 30,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,987
of 326,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#493
of 612 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,036,991 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,322 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 326,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 612 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.