A comparison of mouse and speech input control of a test-annotation system

M.M. Bekker, F.L. Nes, van, J.F. Juola

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    14 Citations (Scopus)


    An experiment was designed to determine whether speech input is a valuable alternative or addition to manual input. Subjects used both speech and mouse input for control purposes in a document-annotation system. Speech recognition was realized by a speaker-dependent speech-recognition board. In separate sessions, subjects used either a mouse or speech interface, and comparisons were made between the two media in performance speed, number of commands, and number of errors. In a third session, subjects were free to use either input medium, and measures included both objective (usage) and subjective (questionnaire) preferences for the two media. The main results were that: (1)9 out of 24 subjects used speech more than the mouse when they were free to use both; (2) 21% of the subjects preferred speech control, because it allowed other devices to be operated manually; and (3) 37% of the subjects preferred to control the system with both input devices available. Speech can be a valuable addition to other input media enabling users to adapt their choice of media to specific task situations.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)14-22
    JournalBehaviour & Information Technology
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 1995


    Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of mouse and speech input control of a test-annotation system'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this