More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Free access

How low should we go?: understanding the perception of latency while inking

Authors:

Michelle Annett,

Walter F. Bischof,

Anoop GuptaAuthors Info & Claims

GI '14: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2014

Pages 167 - 174

Published: 07 May 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Recent advances in hardware have enabled researchers to study the perception of latency. Thus far, latency research has utilized simple touch and stylus-based tasks that do not represent inking activities found in the real world. In this work, we report on two studies that utilized writing and sketching tasks to understand the limits of human perception. Our studies revealed that latency perception while inking is worse (~50 milliseconds) than perception while performing non-inking tasks reported previously (~2-7 milliseconds). We also determined that latency perception is not based on the distance from the stylus' nib to the ink, but rather on the presence of a visual referent such as the hand or stylus. The prior and current work has informed the Latency Perception Model, a framework upon which latency knowledge and the underlying mechanisms of perception can be understood and further explored.

Supplementary Material

JPG File (p167-annett.jpg)

Download
9.20 KB

MP4 File (p167-annett.mp4)

Download
48.44 MB

References

[1]

B. D. Adelstein, D. R. Begault, M. R. Anderson, and E. M. Wenzel. Sensitivity to Haptic-Audio Asynchrony. In Proc. of Int. Conf. on Multimodal Interfaces, 73--76, 2003.

Digital Library

[2]

D. Alamargot, D. Chesnet, C. Dansac, and C. Ros. Eye and Pen: A New Device for Studying Reading during Writing. Behaviour Research Methods, 38(2): 287--299, 2006.

[3]

M. Annett, F. Anderson, W. F. Bischof, and A. Gupta. The Pen is Mightier: Understanding Stylus Behaviour While Inking on Tablets. In Proc. of GI, 2014.

Digital Library

[4]

G. Anderson, R. Doherty, and S. Ganapathy. User Perception of Touch Screen Latency. Design, User Experience, and Usability Part 1, 195--202, 2011.

[5]

R. Coen-Calgi, P. Coraggio, P. Napoletano, O. Schwartz, M. Ferraro, and G. Boccignone. Visuomotor Characterization of Eye Movements in a Drawing Task. Vision Research, 49(8): 810--818, 2009.

[6]

S. Dahl and R. Bresin. Is the Player More Influenced by the Auditory than the Tactile Feedback from the Instrument? In Proc. of the COST-06 Workshop on Digital Audio Effects, 194--197, 2001.

[7]

DLP Discovery 4100 Development Kit. http://www.ti.com/lit/an/dlpa008/dlpa008.pdf. Accessed July 2013.

[8]

M. Fayol, D. Alamargot, and V. W. Berninger. Translation of Thought to Written Text While Composing: Advancing Theory, Knowledge, Research Methods, Tools, and Application. Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2012.

[9]

A. Freed, A. Chaudhary, and B. Davila. Operating System Latency Measurement and Analysis for Sound Synthesis and Processing Applications. In Proc. of Int. Computer Music Conf., 479--481, 1997.

[10]

E. Gowen and R. C. Miall. Eye-tracking Interactions in Tracing and Drawing Tasks. Human Movement Science, 25: 568--585, 2006.

[11]

A. Henzen, N. Ailenei, F. Di Fiore, F. Van Reeth, and J. Patterson. Sketching with a Low-Latency Electronic Ink Drawing Tablet. In Proc. of 3^rd Int. Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques in Australasia and South East Asia, 51--60, 2005.

Digital Library

[12]

A. Henzen, N. Ailenei, F. Van Reeth, G. Vansichem, R. W. Zehner, and K. Amundson. An Electronic Ink Low Latency Drawing Tablet. SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, 35(1): 1070--1073, 2004.

[13]

R. Jota, A. Ng, P. Dietz, and D. Wigdor. How Fast is Fast Enough? A Study of the Effects of Latency in Direct-Touch Pointing Tasks. In Proc. of CHI, 2291--2300, 2013.

Digital Library

[14]

J. C. Lee, P. Dietz, D. Maynes-Aminzade, R. Raskar, and S. Hudson. Automatic Projector Calibration with Embedded Light Sensors. In Proc. of UIST, 123--126, 2004.

Digital Library

[15]

I. S. MacKenzie and C. Ware. Lag as a Determinant of Human Performance in Interactive Systems. In Proc. of CHI, 488--493, 1993.

Digital Library

[16]

T. Maki-Patola. Musical Effects of Latency. Suomen Musiikintutkijoiden, 9: 82--85, 2005.

[17]

T. Maki-Patola and P. Hamalainen. Latency Tolerance for Gesture Controlled Continuous Sound Instrument without Tactile Feedback. In Proc. of Int. Computer Music Conf., 1--5, 2004.

[18]

N. A. McMillian and D. C. Creelman, Detection Theory: a User's Guide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.

[19]

R. C. Miall, H. Imamizu, and S. Miyauchi. Activation of the Cerebellum in Co-Ordinated Eye and Hand Tracking Movements: An fMRI Study. Experimental Brain Research, 135: 22--33, 2000.

[20]

R. B. Miller. Response Time in Man-Computer Conversational Transactions. Fall Joint Computer Conference, 267--277, 1968.

Digital Library

[21]

M. Montag, S. Sullivan, S. Dickey, and C. Leider. A Low-Cost, Low-Latency Multi-Touch Table with Haptic Feedback for Musical Applications. In Proc. of Int. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, 8--13, 2011.

[22]

A. Ng and P. Dietz. The Need for Speed in Touch Systems. SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, 2013.

[23]

A. Ng, J. Lepinski, D. Wigdor, S. Sanders, and P. Dietz. Designing for Low-Latency Direct-Touch Input. In Proc. of UIST, 453--462, 2012.

Digital Library

[24]

A. Ng, M. Annett, P. Dietz, A. Gupta, and W. F. Bischof. In the Blink of an Eye: Investigating Latency Perception during Stylus Interaction. In Proceedings of CHI 2014.

Digital Library

[25]

A. A. Sawchuk, E. Chew, R. Zimmermann, C. Papadopoulos, and C. Kyriakakis. From Remote Media Immersion to Distributed Immersive performance. In Proc. of ACM SIGMM Workshop on Experiential Telepresence, 110--120, 2003.

Digital Library

[26]

S. Seow. Designing and Engineering Time: The Psychology of Time Perception in Software, Pearson Education, Boston, 2008.

Digital Library

[27]

M. M. Taylor, and C. D. Creelman. PEST: Efficient Estimates on Probability Functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41: 782--787, 1967.

[28]

J. Tchalenko. Eye Movements in Drawing Simple Lines. Perception, 36: 1152--1167, 2007.

[29]

J. Tchalenko and R. C. Miall. Eye-hand Strategies in Copying Complex Lines. Cortex, 45:368--376, 2009.

[30]

N. Toyoda, R. Yamamoto, and T. Yubuta. Clarification of Transition Conditions for Eye Movement While Generating a Trajectory Using the Upper Limb. SI International, 106--111, 2011.

[31]

N. Toyoda, R. Yamamoto, and T. Yubuta. Eye Movement While Generating a Trajectory Using the Upper Limb. Journal of Energy and Power Engineering, 6: 1733--1744, 2012.

[32]

D. Vogel and R. Balakrishnan. Direct Pen Interaction with a Conventional Graphic User Interface. Human Computer Interaction, 25: 324--388, 2010.

[33]

A. Wald. Sequential Analysis, John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York, 1947.

[34]

J. Wright and E. Brandt. System-Level MIDI Performance Testing. In Proc. of Int. Computer Music Conf., 318--331, 2001.

Cited By

Halbhuber DSeewald MSchiller FGötz MFehle JHenze N(2022)Using Artificial Neural Networks to Compensate Negative Effects of Latency in Commercial Real-Time Strategy GamesProceedings of Mensch und Computer 202210.1145/3543758.3543767(182-191)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543758.3543767
Halbhuber DKöhler ASchmidbauer MWiese JHenze N(2022)The Effects of Auditory Latency on Experienced First-Person Shooter PlayersProceedings of Mensch und Computer 202210.1145/3543758.3543760(286-296)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543758.3543760
Halbhuber DHuber MSchwind VHenze N(2022)Understanding Player Performance and Gaming Experience while Playing a First-Person Shooter with Auditory LatencyExtended Abstracts of the 2022 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play10.1145/3505270.3558333(24-30)Online publication date: 2-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3505270.3558333
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

How low should we go?: understanding the perception of latency while inking
1. Hardware
  1. Communication hardware, interfaces and storage
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Interaction devices
      1. Touch screens

Recommendations

In the blink of an eye: investigating latency perception during stylus interaction
CHI '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

While pen computing has become increasingly more popular, device responsiveness, or latency, still plagues such interaction. Although there have been advances in digitizer technology over the last few years, commercial end-to-end latencies are ...
Direct and indirect multi-touch interaction on a wall display
IHM '14: Proceedings of the 26th Conference on l'Interaction Homme-Machine

Multi-touch wall displays allow to take advantage of co-located interaction (direct interaction) on very large surfaces. However interacting with content beyond arms' reach requires body movements, introducing fatigue and impacting performance. ...
Exploring and Understanding Unintended Touch during Direct Pen Interaction

The user experience on tablets that support both touch and styli is less than ideal, due in large part to the problem of unintended touch or palm rejection. Devices are often unable to distinguish between intended touch (i.e., interaction on the screen ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

GI '14: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2014

May 2014

230 pages

ISBN:9781482260038

Program Chairs:
Paul G. Kry
McGill University, Canada
,
Andrea Bunt
University of Manitoba, Canada

Sponsors

CHCCS: The Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society

Publisher

Canadian Information Processing Society

Canada

Publication History

Published: 07 May 2014

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 206 of 508 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

11
Total Citations
View Citations
530
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)120
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11

Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Halbhuber DSeewald MSchiller FGötz MFehle JHenze N(2022)Using Artificial Neural Networks to Compensate Negative Effects of Latency in Commercial Real-Time Strategy GamesProceedings of Mensch und Computer 202210.1145/3543758.3543767(182-191)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543758.3543767
Halbhuber DKöhler ASchmidbauer MWiese JHenze N(2022)The Effects of Auditory Latency on Experienced First-Person Shooter PlayersProceedings of Mensch und Computer 202210.1145/3543758.3543760(286-296)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543758.3543760
Halbhuber DHuber MSchwind VHenze N(2022)Understanding Player Performance and Gaming Experience while Playing a First-Person Shooter with Auditory LatencyExtended Abstracts of the 2022 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play10.1145/3505270.3558333(24-30)Online publication date: 2-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3505270.3558333
Casiez GPietrzak TMarchal DPoulmane SFalce MRoussel NGajos KMankoff JHarrison C(2017)Characterizing Latency in Touch and Button-Equipped Interactive SystemsProceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3126594.3126606(29-39)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3126594.3126606
Cattan ERochet-Capellan APerrier PBérard FMark GFussell SLampe Cschraefel mHourcade JAppert CWigdor D(2017)Does Practice Make Perfect?Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3025453.3025585(5619-5629)Online publication date: 2-May-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3025453.3025585
Cattan ERochet-Capellan ABérard FHancock MMarquardt NSchöning JTory M(2016)Effect of Touch Latency on Elementary vs. Bimanual Composite TasksProceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces10.1145/2992154.2992160(103-108)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2992154.2992160
Nancel MVogel DDe Araujo BJota RCasiez GRekimoto JIgarashi TWobbrock JAvrahami D(2016)Next-Point Prediction Metrics for Perceived Spatial ErrorsProceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/2984511.2984590(271-285)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2984511.2984590
Deber JAraujo BJota RForlines CLeigh DSanders SWigdor DKaye JDruin ALampe CMorris DHourcade J(2016)Hammer Time!Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/2858036.2858394(2857-2868)Online publication date: 7-May-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2858036.2858394
Cattan ERochet-Capellan APerrier PBérard FNunes NCostanza EOlivier PSchöning J(2015)Reducing Latency with a Continuous PredictionProceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Interactive Tabletops & Surfaces10.1145/2817721.2817736(205-214)Online publication date: 15-Nov-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2817721.2817736
Deber JJota RForlines CWigdor DBegole BKim JInkpen KWoo W(2015)How Much Faster is Fast Enough?Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/2702123.2702300(1827-1836)Online publication date: 18-Apr-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2702123.2702300
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents