1. Engineering Design Centre Project Updates –August 2014

2. Engineering Design Centre Aim of the study To compare –performance and preferences of users for different input modalities –a standard computer mouse and HOTAS Joystick with different eye-gaze, head and hand movement tracking based pointing systems

3. Engineering Design Centre Vision parameters

4. Engineering Design Centre Cognitive parameters Trail Making TestDigit Symbol Test

5. Engineering Design Centre Motor parameters Range of Motion of wrist (Palm facing down) Measuring Radial Deviation Measuring Ulnar Deviation

6. Engineering Design Centre Participants AgeSexNationalitiesGSROMWDSTTMTVACB 126FIndian24656437.41N 223FBritish281006827.31N 353MBritish52684222.80N 434MIndian39654438.90N 530FPolish27705640.40N 646MBritish557863380N 728MSouth African48605223.80N 823MBritish47957818.440N 919MBritish271105521.531N 1030FItalian301066416.83N 1122MAmerican52757423.580N 1230MBritish30806821.50N 1326MSpanish54957817.090N

7. Engineering Design Centre Task

8. Engineering Design Centre Design Modalities 1.Eye Tracking with Z-Axis selection (ZET) 2.Eye Tracking with Voice-based selection (VoiceET) 3.Adapted Eye Tracking (AdaptedET) 4.Multimodal Eye Tracking (MmET) 5.Head Tracking with Z-Axis selection (ZHT) 6.Head Tracking with Voice-based selection (VoiceHT) 7.Adaptive Head Tracking (AdaptedHT) 8.Hand Tracking with Z-Axis selection (ZGS) 9.Hand Tracking with Voice-based selection (VoiceGS) 10.Adaptive Hand Tracking (AdaptedGS) 11.HOTAS Joystick 12.Mouse Targets –Size 45, 55, 65, 75 pixels –Distances 80, 160, 240, 325 pixels [ 1 pixel ≈ 0.25 mm ]

9. Engineering Design Centre Results All participants can undertake trials in all conditions We measured –Selection time –Cursor trace #Wrong Selections Main movement + Homing Time Extra Distance Travelled over Target Axis Length –Pupil diameter –TLX scores –BRS scores

10. Engineering Design Centre Selection Times

11. Engineering Design Centre Fitts’ Law

12. Engineering Design Centre Selection Times - ANOVA SourcedfFSig. Eta Squared DEVICE4.0258.490.000.71 Error(DEVICE)96.36 WIDTH2.2066.250.000.73 Error(WIDTH)52.70 DIST3.009.650.000.29 Error(DIST)72.00 DEVICE * WIDTH33.003.790.000.14 Error(DEVICE*WIDTH)792.00 DEVICE * DIST33.001.410.070.06 Error(DEVICE*DIST)792.00 WIDTH * DIST5.301.600.160.06 Error(WIDTH*DIST)127.15 DEVICE * WIDTH * DIST99.001.220.070.05 Error(DEVICE*WIDTH*DIST)2376.00 Device × Width × Distance

13. Engineering Design Centre Selection Times - ANOVA Point × Select × Width × Distance SourcedfFSig. Eta Squared POINT1.3270.770.000.75 Error(POINT)31.58 SELECT2.0091.160.000.79 Error(SELECT)48.00 WIDTH3.0028.610.000.54 Error(WIDTH)72.00 DIST2.078.380.000.26 Error(DIST)49.56 POINT * WIDTH3.456.160.000.20 Error(POINT*WIDTH)82.77 SELECT * WIDTH3.694.120.010.15 Error(SELECT*WIDTH)88.56

14. Engineering Design Centre Interaction Diagrams - Pointing

15. Engineering Design Centre Interaction Diagrams

16. Engineering Design Centre Analysing Trajectory Source Target Reached Target Click: End of Task

17. Engineering Design Centre Main Movement Time

18. Engineering Design Centre Time Spent near Target Homing Time = Selection Time – Cursor reached Target

19. Engineering Design Centre Selection Times – Device Comparison

20. Engineering Design Centre Extra Distance Travelled Extra Distance = Total Distance – Target Axis Length

21. Engineering Design Centre Wrong Selections

22. Engineering Design Centre Cognitive Load

23. Engineering Design Centre Spare Mental Capacity

24. Engineering Design Centre Synopsis Pointing –Mouse << Head Movement << Hand Movement << Eye Gaze << HOTAS Joystick Selection –Adaptive << Z-Axis << MmET << Voice Cognitive Load –Mouse << AdaptedHT << …<< Joystick << VoiceET –Not enough spare mental capacity for VoiceGS, VoiceET and HOTAS Joystick

25. Engineering Design Centre Pupil Data Analysis

26. Engineering Design Centre Maximum Pupil Diameter

27. Engineering Design Centre Uncertainty Principle

28. Engineering Design Centre Gabor Limit

29. Engineering Design Centre Pupil as a wave signal

30. Engineering Design Centre Existing work & Patent Sudden change in pupil diameter Methods –Wavelet Transform –Linear Discriminate Analysis –Neural Network Applications –Driving simulation –Aviation –Map reading –ET as passive not active

31. Engineering Design Centre Power Spectrum Participants ρ P10.94 P20.93 P30.67 P40.24 P50.73 P60.64 P70.19 P80.51 P90.72 P100.29 P110.76 P12-0.87 P131 Average0.83

32. Engineering Design Centre Comparing Correlations with TLX Scores

33. Engineering Design Centre Power Spectrum vs TLX Scores

34. Engineering Design Centre Power Spectrum vs Selection Times

35. Engineering Design Centre Power Spectrum for different IDs

36. Engineering Design Centre Power Spectrum vs Selection Times

37. Engineering Design Centre Comparing Effect Sizes ( η² )

38. Engineering Design Centre Advantages over Previous work FFT over FWT –No need to choose basis wavelets Application agnostic evaluation Works with low frequency (and cheaper) eye gaze tracker Validated while ET is used in both active and passive modes However distance to target can also affect pupil diameter which may not indicate a change in cognitive load