Eye-hand coupling is not the cause of manual return movements when searching.

When searching for a target with eye movements, saccades are planned and initiated while the visual information is still being processed, so that subjects often make saccades away from the target and then have to make an additional return saccade. Presumably, the cost of the additional saccades is outweighed by the advantage of short fixations. We previously showed that when the cost of passing the target was increased, by having subjects manually move a window through which they could see the visual scene, subjects still passed the target and made return movements (with their hand). When moving a window in this manner, the eyes and hand follow the same path. To find out whether the hand still passes the target and then returns when eye and hand movements are uncoupled, we here compared moving a window across a scene with moving a scene behind a stationary window. We ensured that the required movement of the hand was identical in both conditions. Subjects found the target faster when moving the window across the scene than when moving the scene behind the window, but at the expense of making larger return movements. The relationship between the return movements and movement speed when comparing the two conditions was the same as the relationship between these two when comparing different window sizes. We conclude that the hand passing the target and then returning is not directly related to the eyes doing so, but rather that moving on before the information has been fully processed is a general principle of visuomotor control.

Combining eye and hand in search is suboptimal.

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.

Simultaneous processing of visual information and planning of hand movements in a visuo-manual search task.

When searching for a target with eye movements, saccades are planned and initiated while the visual information is still being processed. If hand movements are needed to perform a search task, can they too be planned while visual information from the current position is still being processed? To find out we studied a visual search task in which participants had to move their hand to shift a window through which they could see the items. The task was to find an O in a circle of Cs. The size of the window and the sizes of the gaps in the Cs were varied. Participants made fast, smooth arm movements between items and adjusted their movements, when on the items, to the window size. On many trials the window passed the target and returned, indicating that the next movement had been planned before identifying the item that was in view.

Effects of a vertical keyboard design on typing performance, user comfort and muscle tension.

To circumvent the awkward pronated hand position inherent to conventional horizontal keyboards, a vertical, split keyboard was designed with flexible cushions supporting the wrists, allowing relaxed hand and arm postures. During eight twice-weekly 30-min training sessions, the performance and subjective comfort of nine experienced typists were tested. Typing speed and error percentage, and surface electromyographic activity of six forearm muscles and two postural muscles were recorded in separate sessions at the end of each week. Typing speed rapidly recovered to the preset rate of 300 keystrokes/min and error percentages were similar for the two keyboards. The vertical keyboard caused lower muscular activity in especially finger extensor muscles, did not increase postural muscle activity, and self-reported comfort was higher. Thus, the vertical keyboard was easily mastered, was experienced as comfortable, and caused less stress on muscles sensitive to repetitive strain injuries.