Efficacy of three head-pointing devices for a mouse emulation task.

Area of Science:

• Assistive Technology
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Rehabilitation Engineering

Background:

• Multiple head-pointing mouse emulation technologies exist, making device selection challenging for clinicians.
• Manufacturers claim similar functionality, necessitating objective performance comparisons.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the functional performance and user experience of three head-pointing mouse emulation technologies.
• To evaluate drawing speed, accuracy, and user comfort across different devices.

Main Methods:

• Three commercially available devices (HeadMaster Plus, Tracker 2000, Tracer) were tested.
• Participants completed drawing tasks until stable performance was achieved.
• Data collected included trials to mastery, drawing speed, drawing accuracy, and subjective user feedback.

Main Results:

• No single device was fastest for all participants; HeadMaster Plus showed the most consistent speed.
• Overall device performance was similar, but user preference was significantly influenced by comfort.
• Faster devices (HeadMaster Plus, Tracer) led to comfort complaints, while the most comfortable (Tracker 2000) was preferred despite slightly slower performance.

Conclusions:

• User comfort is a critical factor in selecting head-pointing mouse emulation devices, often outweighing minor performance differences.
• Clinicians should consider individual user comfort alongside performance metrics when recommending assistive technology.
• Future device development should prioritize both functional efficiency and ergonomic design.