Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Gawthrop, P.J.; Lakie, M.; Loram, I. (2008)
Publisher: Springer
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: TJ
Fitts’ law is a well established empirical formula, known for encapsulating the “speed-accuracy trade-off”. For discrete, manual movements from a starting location to a target, Fitts’ law relates movement duration to the distance moved and target size. The widespread empirical success of the formula is suggestive of underlying principles of human movement control. There have been previous attempts to relate Fitts’ law to engineering-type control hypotheses and it has been shown that the law is exactly consistent with the closed-loop step-response of a time-delayed, first-order system. Assuming only the operation of closed-loop feedback, either continuous or intermittent, this paper asks whether such feedback should be predictive or not predictive to be consistent with Fitts law. Since Fitts’ law is equivalent to a time delay separated from a first-order system, known control theory implies that the controller must be predictive. A predictive controller moves the time-delay outside the feedback loop such that the closed-loop response can be separated into a time delay and rational function whereas a non- predictive controller retains a state delay within feedback loop which is not consistent with Fitts’ law. Using sufficient parameters, a high-order non-predictive controller could approximately reproduce Fitts’ law. However, such high-order, “non-parametric” controllers are essentially empirical in nature, without physical meaning, and therefore are conceptually inferior to the predictive controller. It is a new insight that using closed-loop feedback, prediction is required to physically explain Fitts’ law. The implication is that prediction is an inherent part of the “speed-accuracy trade-off”.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Peter J. Gawthrop and Eric Ronco. A sensitivity bond graph approach to estimation and control of mechatronic systems. In Proceedings of the 1st IFAC Conference on Mechatronic Systems, Darmstadt, September 2000.
    • Peter J Gawthrop and Eric Ronco. Predictive pole-placement control with linear models. Automatica, 38(3):421-432, March 2002.
    • Peter J. Gawthrop and Liuping Wang. Intermittent predictive control of an inverted pendulum. Control Engineering Practice, 14(11): 1347-1356, November 2006.
    • Peter J Gawthrop and Liuping Wang. Intermittent model predictive control. To appear Proceedings Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I, 2008.
    • Christopher M. Harris and Daniel M. Wolpert. Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature, 394, 780-784, August, 1998.
    • O. L. R. Jacobs. Introduction to Control Theory. Oxford University Press, 1974.
    • Richard J. Jagacinski and John M. Flach. Control Theory for Humans: Quantitative Approaches to Modelling Performance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
    • R.E. Kalman. When is a linear control system optimal? Trans. ASME Journal of Basic Engineering, 86:51-60, March 1964.
    • D. Kleinman. Optimal control of linear systems with time-delay and observation noise. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 14: 524-527, 1969.
    • H. Kwakernaak and R. Sivan. Linear Optimal Control Systems. Wiley, 1972.
    • Martin Lakie, Nicholas Caplan, and Ian D. Loram. Human balancing of an inverted pendulum with a compliant linkage: neural control by anticipatory intermittent bias. J Physiol, 551(1):357-370, 2003.
    • Ian David Loram, Peter Gawthrop, and Martin Lakie. The frequency of human, manual adjustments in balancing an inverted pendulum is constrained by intrinsic physiological factors. J Physiol (Lond), 577(1):403-416, 2006. Published on-line: September 14, 2006.
    • J. E. Marshall. Control of Time-delay Systems. Peter Peregrinus, 1979.
    • D. McRuer. Human dynamics in man-machine systems. Automatica, 16:237-253, May 1980.
    • D. E. Meyer, J. E. K. Smith, S. Kornblum, R. A. Abrams, and C. E. Wright. Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in aimed movements: Toward a theory of rapid voluntary action. In M. Jeannerod, editor, Attention and performance, volume XIII, pages 173-226). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990.
    • R. C. Miall and J. K. Jackson. Adaptation to visual feedback delays in manual tracking: Evidence against the smith predictor model of human visually guided action. Experimental Brain Research, 172: 77-84, 2006.
    • R. C. Miall and D. M. Wolpert. Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks, 9:1265-1279, November 1996.
    • RC Miall, DJ Weir, and JF Stein. Intermittency in human manual tracking tasks. J Motor Behav, 25:5363, 1993a.
    • RC Miall, DJ Weir, DM Wolpert, and JF Stein. Is the cerebellum a Smith predictor? J Motor Behav, 25:203216, 1993b.
    • P.D. Neilson, M.D. Neilson, and N.J. O'Dwyer. Internal models and intermittency: A theoretical account of human tracking behaviour. Biological Cybernetics, 58:101-112, 1988.
    • Peter D. Neilson. Influence of intermittency and synergy on grasping. Motor Control, 3:280-284, 1999.
    • Peter D Neilson and Megan D Neilson. An overview of adaptive model theory: solving the problems of redundancy, resources, and nonlinear interactions in human movement control. Journal of Neural Engineering, 2(3):S279-S312, 2005.
    • G. C. Newton, L. A. Gould, and J. F. Kaiser. Analytical design of linear feedback controls. Wiley, New York, 1957.
    • C.A. Phillips and D.W. Repperger. Why engineers should know and use fitts' law? In Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology - Proceedings, volume 4, pages 1686-1689, Wright State Univ, Dayton, United States, 1997.
    • R. Plamondon and A. M. Alimi. Speed/accuracy trade-offs in targetdirected movements. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20:279-349, 1997.
    • E. Ronco, T. Arsan, and P. J. Gawthrop. Open-loop intermittent feedback control: Practical continuous-time GPC. IEE Proceedings Part D: Control Theory and Applications, 146(5):426-434, September 1999.
    • A. P. Sage and J. J. Melsa. Estimation Theory with Applications to Communication and Control. McGraw-Hill, 1971.
    • O. J. M. Smith. A controller to overcome dead-time. ISA Transactions, 6(2):28-33, 1959.
    • R.W. Soukoreff and I.S. MacKenzie. Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of fitts' law research in hci. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 61(6): 751-789, 2004.
    • H. Van Der Kooij, R. Jacobs, B. Koopman, and H. Grootenboer. A multisensory integration model of human stance control. Biological Cybernetics, 80:299-308, 1999.
    • C.D. Wickens and J.G. Hollands. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Prentice Hall, 3rd edition, 2000.
    • Daniel M. Wolpert, R. Chris Miall, and Mitsuo Kawato. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2:338-347, September 1998.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article