Smooth or Textured: Does Mouse Pad Surface Impact Performance?

http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/72/MousePad.asp

Smooth or Textured: Does Mouse Pad Surface Impact Performance?


By Jeremy
Slocum and Shelby Thompson

Summary: This study examined the effects of
mouse pad usage on performance of a target acquisition task. Results
indicated no performance difference between three specialized mouse
pads, a traditional mouse pad and no mouse pad. In addition, no
significant differences were found between each of the mousing surfaces
based on kinematic data. The results suggest that manufacturer claims of
increased performance cannot be supported by empirical evidence.

Introduction


With the advent of high-speed processors and video cards, sales of
computer video games have skyrocketed, leading to the development of
organized 'gaming' communities and events. Within the competitive
computer gaming community, optimized user input performance is of
uppermost importance. Most of these games rely on fast-accurate
movements of the mouse for aiming at a target, or manipulating movements
during competitions. Manufacturers of computer accessories have
benefited from an increased desire for gamers to have a "competitive
edge" with regard to control of input by demanding high-dpi optical
mice, specialized input devices and specialized mouse pads. However
little empirical evidence exists showing these products improve basic
input control with a computer, let alone computer gaming performance.

The goal of the present research was to test the claims of
specialized mouse pad manufacturers that mouse pad surfaces can increase
mousing performance for competitive gamers. The present study measured
the effect of three different mouse pad surfaces on cursor control
performance during a simple target acquisition task. Performance was
examined through movement time (MT) and error rate (ER). The kinematic
variables of peak velocity (PV), gross movement time (GMT: time from
initial movement to first zero crossing in the velocity profile) and
fine movement time (FMT: time from end of GMT to end of movement) were
also examined to determine how the mouse pad surface affects the actual
movements made by a user. It was hypothesized that as the texture of the
mouse pad becomes smoother users will move faster (i.e., increased PV),
but make more errors and show an increase in gross movement time (GMT).

METHOD


Participants


Twenty-five college students, 16 females and 9 males (M = 24.28 years
of age) were matched according to movement time with a standard optical
mouse without a mouse pad and then randomly assigned to one of four
different mouse-pad conditions or a control group (no pad). All were
right-hand experienced mouse-users and had normal or corrected-to-normal
vision with no other physical impairments being reported.
Materials


The mouse pads used are shown in Figure 1: the Corepad (www.corepad.com),
the G-Pad by Maxtill (www.maxtill.com),
the Thunder 9 by X-Ray (www.xraypad.com),
and a traditional foam mouse pad.
The Corepad (rougher surface) was 280 x 200mm and made of glass with
"fencing" branded in to create texture. The G-Pad by Maxtill (smoother
surface) was 265 x 215mm and made of frictionless tempered glass. The
Thunder 9 by X-Ray (moderately smooth surface) was 291 x 236mm and made
of rigid ABS material. The traditional mouse pad was 270 x 215mm and
made of foam with a cloth surface. The table used had a 36 X 18" desktop
area made of a low-glare Formica. The experimental apparatus consisted
of a PC running Linux, a 21-inch monitor running at 1400 x 1050 with a
resolution of 100 DPI and a refresh rate of 85 Hz, and a Logitech
MX300 Optical Mouse (800 DPI).



Figure 1. The Corepad (top left), the G-pad by
Maxtill (bottom left), and Thunder 9 (right)


Procedure


The experiment was divided into two sessions: a pre-session where
subjects completed a target acquisition task without a mouse pad and a
post-session in which subjects completed the same target acquisition
task with a mouse pad or without if assigned to the control group. The
purpose of the pre-session was to establish an average movement time in
order to match each participant in the post-session. The experiment
varied display target distance (17.5, 70, and 140 mm), display target
size (2, 4, and , and angle of approach (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°,
225°, 270°, and 315°) in a discrete pointing task. Participants were
asked to acquire the target "as quickly and accurately as possible."
Amplitude, target size, and angle were randomized via the software. In
the post-session, subjects were randomly assigned to one of five mouse
pad groups: G-pad, Corepad, Thunder 9, traditional mouse pad, or no
mouse pad.
RESULTS


With the emphasis of the study being the mouse pads, the data was
collapsed across all conditions for each subject (N = 25, 5 subjects per
pad). Results of a one-way ANOVA to test the adequacy of the matching
procedure found no difference in MT (p = .998), indicating that each
subject was appropriately matched across all post-session conditions.
Additional one-way ANOVA's found no significant difference for the
remaining dependent variables (GMT, FMT, PV and ER).
With the subjects appropriately matched, a series of split plot
ANOVA's using each dependent variable was completed, with session (pre
and post) being the within-subjects variable and mouse pad being the
between-subject variable (Table 1). A significant main effect for
session was found for MT [F(1,20) = 7.939, p =.011, h2 = .284] and FMT
[F(1,20) = 6.208, p =.022, h2 = .237], showing a significant decrease in
MT and FMT from the pre-session to the post-session. No significant
main effect for mouse pad or interaction with session and mouse pad was
found.
Table 1. Performance means for pre-session and post-session.


Mouse-pad MT (seconds) ER (% of trials with error) PV (mm per second) GMT(seconds) FMT(seconds)

G-pad
Pre-session	0.870	5.694	103.808	0.520	0.350
Post-session	0.862	4.826	102.353	0.517	0.356
Corepad
Pre-session	0.862	4.201	95.431	0.533	0.330
Post-session	0.848	3.785	96.087	0.542	0.305
Thunder 9
Pre-session	0.855	11.875	98.488	0.500	0.354
Post-session	0.855	11.007	101.666	0.513	0.340
Traditional-pad
Pre-session	0.858	7.014	105.192	0.469	0.390
Post-session	0.824	6.458	108.758	0.461	0.362
No Pad
Pre-session	0.865	5.417	89.605	0.563	0.302
Post-session	0.840	4.688	94.469	0.559	0.286

DISCUSSION


The results showed that different mouse pad surfaces did not
significantly affect performance in terms of movement time (Figure 2) or
error rate. A general significant decrease in movement time and fine
movement time was found from the pre-session to the post-session, which
is attributed to practice. The effect cannot be generalized to any
particular mouse pad surface or mouse pads because the same decrease was
seen in the control group which used no mouse pad.


Figure 2. MT for each target condition in the
post-session. This figure outlines how there is little difference
between performance for each of the mouse pad conditions.


Kinematic analysis was conducted to determine if the mouse pads
significantly affected the actual movements made by users. It was
predicted that as mouse pads became smoother users would attain a higher
velocity, but would increase fine movement time. These predictions were
not supported. The mouse pad surface did not have a significant effect
on gross movement time, fine movement time, or peak velocity.
These findings show no true performance benefit from specialized
mouse pads, nor did it affect the user's kinematics. The claims of the
manufacturers were not substantiated by these findings. However, more
questions remain to be answered. This research did not specifically
target experienced gamers as participants. Research should be conducted
to examine the use of alternative mouse pads with this population
(versus non-gamers). It could be that a certain level of skill is
required to take advantage of the claimed benefits of the mouse pads. In
addition gamer performance during actual play should be evaluated.
Note: For additional information on this study,
please see the proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's
49th (2004) Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.