4.4 Article

Development of a novel approach to the assessment of eye-hand coordination

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
卷 228, 期 -, 页码 50-56

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.02.012

关键词

Eye-hand coordination; Computer-based; Development; Repeatability; Objective

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Current methods to measure eye-hand coordination (EHC) have been widely applied in research and practical fields. However, some aspects of the methods, such as subjectivity, high price, portability, and high appraisal contribute to difficulties in EHC testing. New methods: The test was developed on an Apple iPad (R) and involves tracing up to 13 shapes with a stylus pen. The time taken to complete each trace and the spatial accuracy of the tracing is automatically recorded. The difficulty level for each shape was evaluated theoretically based on the complexity and length of outline. Ten adults aged 31.5 +/- 7.8 years and five children aged 9.4 +/- 1.1 years with normal vision participated. Results: In adults, the time taken to trace and number of errors significantly decreased from the first to the second attempt (p < 0.05) but not thereafter, suggesting a learning effect with repeatability after a practice attempt. Time taken and number of errors in children were both higher in monocular than binocular viewing conditions (p = 0.02 and p <0.01, respectively) while adults' performance was similar in both viewing conditions. Comparison with existing methods: Existing EHC tests are subjective in clinics and require higher skills and cost in research, and measure gross EHC. This novel test has been developed to address some of the limitations. Conclusions: The test is engaging for children and adults and is an objective method with potential for the assessment of fine EHC, suited to clinic-based and research use in ophthalmic or brain trauma settings, and in developmental disorders. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据