A comparison of tracking with visual and kinesthetic-tactual displays

Recent research on manual tracking with a kinesthetic-tactual (KT) display suggests that under appropriate conditions it may be an effective means of providing visual workload relief. In order to better understand how KT tracking differs from visual tracking, both a critical tracking task and stationary single-axis tracking tasks were conducted with and without velocity quickening. On the critical tracking task, the visual displays were superior; however, the KT quickened display was approximately equal to the visual unquickened display. Mean squared error scores in the stationary tracking tasks for the visual and KT displays were approximately equal in the quickened conditions, and the describing functions were very similar. In the unquickened conditions, the visual display was superior. Subjects using the unquickened KT display exhibited a low frequency lead-lag that may be related to sensory adaptation.