Interaction paradigms versus age-related user profiles: an evaluation on content selection

Novel input modalities such as touch, tangibles or gestures try to exploit human's innate skills rather than imposing new learning processes. However, despite the recent boom of different natural interaction paradigms, it hasn't been systematically evaluated how these interfaces influence a user's performance or whether each interface could be more or less appropriate when it comes to: 1) different age groups; and 2) different basic operations, as data selection, insertion or manipulation. This work presents the first step of an exploratory evaluation about whether or not the users' performance is indeed influenced by the different interfaces. The key point is to understand how different interaction paradigms affect specific target-audiences (children, adults and older adults) when dealing with a selection task. 60 participants took part in this study to assess how different interfaces may influence the interaction of specific groups of users with regard to their age. Four input modalities were used to perform a selection task and the methodology was based on usability testing (speed, accuracy and user preference). The study suggests a statistically significant difference between mean selection times for each group of users, and also raises new issues regarding the “old” mouse input versus the “new” input modalities.

Repeated assessment and practice effects of the written symbol digit modalities test using a short inter-test interval

The Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) is a widely used instrument to assess information processing speed, attention, visual scanning, and tracking. Considering that repeated evaluations are a common need in neuropsychological assessment routines, we explored test–retest reliability and practice effects of two alternate SDMT forms with a short inter-assessment interval. A total of 123 university students completed the written SDMT version in two different time points separated by a 150-min interval. Half of the participants accomplished the same form in both occasions, while the other half filled different forms. Overall, reasonable test–retest reliabilities were found (r = .70), and the subjects that completed the same form revealed significant practice effects (p < .001, dz = 1.61), which were almost non-existent in those filling different forms. These forms were found to be moderately reliable and to elicit a similar performance across participants, suggesting their utility in repeated cognitive assessments when brief inter-assessment intervals are required.