Skip to main content
Log in

Predictive feedback control and Fitts–law

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Cybernetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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’

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bays PM, Wolpert DM (2007) Computational principles of sensorimotor control that minimize uncertainty and variability. J Physiol 578(2): 387–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beggs WD, Howarth CI (1972) The accuracy of aiming at a target. some further evidence for a theory of intermittent control. Acta Psychol 36: 171–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan N, Shadmehr R (1999a) Computational nature of human adaptive control during learning of reaching movements in force fields. Biol Cybern 81(1): 39–0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan N, Shadmehr R (1999b) Evidence for a forward dynamics model in human adaptive control. In: Kearns MS, Solla SA, Cohn DA(eds) Advances in neural processing systems, vol 11. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3–

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon DJ (1994) Experiments with a target-threshold control theory model for deriving Fitts–law parameters for human-machine systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(8): 1089–098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly EM (1984) A control model: an alternative interpretation of fitts–law. In: Proceedings 28th annual meeting of the human factors society, San Antonio, TX

  • Craik KJ (1947) Theory of human operators in control systems: Part 1, the operator as an engineering system. Br J Psychol 38: 56–1

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson PR, Wolpert DM (2005) Widespread access to predictive models in the motor system: A short review. J Neural Eng 2(3): S313-S319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doeringer JA, Hogan N (1998) Intermittency in preplanned elbow movements persists in the absence of visual feedback. J Neurophysiol 80: 1787–799

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47(6): 3810–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furuta K, Iwase M, Hatakeyama S (2005) Internal model and saturating actuation in human operation from view of human-adaptive mechatronics. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 52: 1236–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawthrop PJ, Jones RW, Sbarbaro DG (1996) Emulator-based control and internal model control: Complementary approaches to robust control design. Automatica 32(8): 1223–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawthrop PJ (2002) Physical model-based intermittent predictive control. In: Kaczorek T (ed) Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics, pp 707–12, Szczecin, Poland, September 2002

  • Gawthrop PJ (2004) Intermittent constrained predictive control of mechanical systems. In: Petersen IR (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd IFAC Symposium on Mechatronic Systems, Manly, Australia, 2004

  • Gawthrop PJ, Ronco E (2000) 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

  • Gawthrop PJ, Ronco E (2002) Predictive pole-placement control with linear models. Automatica 38(3): 421–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawthrop PJ, Wang L (2006) Intermittent predictive control of an inverted pendulum. Control Eng Pract 14(11): 1347–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris CM, Wolpert DM (1998) Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394: 780–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs OLR (1974) Introduction to control theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagacinski RJ, Flach JM (2003) Control theory for humans: quantitative approaches to modelling performance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalman RE (1964) When is a linear control system optimal. Trans ASME J Basic Eng 86: 51–0

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman D (1969) Optimal control of linear systems with time-delay and observation noise. Automat Control, IEEE Trans 14: 524–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwakernaak H, Sivan R (1972) Linear optimal control systems. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakie M, Caplan N, Loram ID (2003) Human balancing of an inverted pendulum with a compliant linkage: neural control by anticipatory intermittent bias. J Physiol 551(1): 357–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loram ID, Gawthrop P, Lakie M (2006) The frequency of human, manual adjustments in balancing an inverted pendulum is constrained by intrinsic physiological factors. J Physiol (Lond) 577(1): 403–16. (Published on-line: September 14, 2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall JE (1979) Control of time-delay systems. Peter Peregrinus, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McRuer D (1980) Human dynamics in man-machine systems. Automatica 16: 237–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer DE, Smith JEK, Kornblum S, Abrams RA, Wright CE (1990) Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in aimed movements: toward a theory of rapid voluntary action. In: Jeannerod M(eds) Attention and performance, vol XIII. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 173–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Miall RC, Jackson JK (2006) Adaptation to visual feedback delays in manual tracking: Evidence against the smith predictor model of human visually guided action. Exp Brain Res 172: 77–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miall RC, Weir DJ, Stein JF (1993a) Intermittency in human manual tracking tasks. J Motor Behav 25: 530–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Miall RC, Weir DJ, Wolpert DM, Stein JF (1993b) Is the cerebellum a Smith predictor. J Motor Behav 25: 2030–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Miall RC, Wolpert DM (1996) Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Netw 9: 1265–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson PD, Neilson MD, O’Dwyer NJ (1988) Internal models and intermittency: A theoretical account of human tracking behaviour. Biol Cybern 58: 101–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson PD (1999) Influence of intermittency and synergy on grasping. Motor Control 3: 280–84

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson PD, Neilson MD (2005) An overview of adaptive model theory: solving the problems of redundancy, resources, and nonlinear interactions in human movement control. J Neural Eng 2(3): S279-S312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newton GC, Gould La, Kaiser JF (1957) Analytical design of linear feedback controls. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips CA, Repperger DW (1997) Why engineers should know and use fitts–law? In: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology—Proceedings, vol 4. Wright State Univ, Dayton, United States, pp 1686–689

  • Plamondon R, Alimi AM (1997) Speed/accuracy trade-offs in target-directed movements. Behav Brain Sci 20: 279–49

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ronco E, Arsan T, Gawthrop PJ (1999) Open-loop intermittent feedback control: practical continuous-time GPC. IEE Proc Part D: Control Theory Appl 146(5): 426–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sage AP, Melsa JJ (1971) Estimation theory with applications to communication and control. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith OJM (1959) A controller to overcome dead-time. ISA Trans 6(2): 28–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Soukoreff RW, MacKenzie IS (2004) Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of fitts–law research in hci. Int J Hum Comput Stud 61(6): 751–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanDer Kooij H, Jacobs R, Koopman B, Grootenboer H (1999) A multisensory integration model of human stance control. Biol Cybern 80: 299–08

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens CD, Hollands JG (2000) Engineering psychology and human performance, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert DM, Chris Miall R, Kawato M (1998) Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends Cogn Sci 2: 338–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Gawthrop.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gawthrop, P., Lakie, M. & Loram, I. Predictive feedback control and Fitts–law. Biol Cybern 98, 229–238 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-007-0206-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-007-0206-9

Keywords

Navigation