↓ Skip to main content

Getting nowhere fast: trade-off between speed and precision in training to execute image-guided hand-tool movements

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Getting nowhere fast: trade-off between speed and precision in training to execute image-guided hand-tool movements
Published in
BMC Psychology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40359-016-0161-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anil Ufuk Batmaz, Michel de Mathelin, Birgitta Dresp-Langley

Abstract

The speed and precision with which objects are moved by hand or hand-tool interaction under image guidance depend on a specific type of visual and spatial sensorimotor learning. Novices have to learn to optimally control what their hands are doing in a real-world environment while looking at an image representation of the scene on a video monitor. Previous research has shown slower task execution times and lower performance scores under image-guidance compared with situations of direct action viewing. The cognitive processes for overcoming this drawback by training are not yet understood. We investigated the effects of training on the time and precision of direct view versus image guided object positioning on targets of a Real-world Action Field (RAF). Two men and two women had to learn to perform the task as swiftly and as precisely as possible with their dominant hand, using a tool or not and wearing a glove or not. Individuals were trained in sessions of mixed trial blocks with no feed-back. As predicted, image-guidance produced significantly slower times and lesser precision in all trainees and sessions compared with direct viewing. With training, all trainees get faster in all conditions, but only one of them gets reliably more precise in the image-guided conditions. Speed-accuracy trade-offs in the individual performance data show that the highest precision scores and steepest learning curve, for time and precision, were produced by the slowest starter. Fast starters produced consistently poorer precision scores in all sessions. The fastest starter showed no sign of stable precision learning, even after extended training. Performance evolution towards optimal precision is compromised when novices start by going as fast as they can. The findings have direct implications for individual skill monitoring in training programmes for image-guided technology applications with human operators.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 25%
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Psychology 7 15%
Engineering 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 10 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,538,049
of 24,002,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#533
of 897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,296
of 311,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,002,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.