Comparing Touchscreen and Mouse Input Performance by People With and Without Upper Body Motor Impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlled studies of touchscreen input performance for users with upper body motor impairments remain relatively sparse. To address this gap, we present a controlled lab study of mouse vs. touchscreen performance with 32 participants (16 with upper body motor impairments and 16 without). Our study examines: (1) how touch input compares to an indirect pointing device (a mouse); (2) how performance compares across a range of standard interaction techniques; and (3) how these answers differ for users with and without motor impairments. While the touchscreen was faster than the mouse overall, only participants without motor impairments benefited from a lower error rate on the touchscreen. Indeed, participants with motor impairments had a three-fold increase in pointing (tapping) errors on the touchscreen compared to the mouse. Our findings also highlight the high frequency of spurious touches for users with motor impairments and update past accessibility recommendations for minimum touchscreen target sizes to at least 18mm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".