The Effect of Tactile and Audio Feedback in Handheld Mobile Text Entry

Effects of tactile and audio feedback are examined in the context of touchscreen and mobile use. Prior experimental research is graphically summarized by task type (handheld text entry, tabletop text entry, non-text input), tactile feedback type (active, passive), and significant findings, revealing a research gap evaluating passive tactile feedback in handheld text entry (a.k.a. texting ). A passive custom tactile overlay is evaluated in a new experiment wherein 24 participants perform a handheld text entry task on an iPhone under four tactile and audio feedback conditions with measures of text entry speed and accuracy. Results indicate audio feedback produces better performance, while the tactile overlay degrades performance, consistent with reviewed literature. Contrary to previous findings, the combined feedback condition did not produce improved performance. Findings are discussed in light of skill-based behavior and feed-forward control principles described by Gibson (1966) and Rasmussen (1983)

A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: let us err on the side of caution

We greatly appreciate the care and thought that is evident in the 10 commentaries that discuss our debate paper, the majority of which argued in favor of a formalized ICD-11 gaming disorder. We agree that there are some people whose play of video games is related to life problems. We believe that understanding this population and the nature and severity of the problems they experience should be a focus area for future research. However, moving from research construct to formal disorder requires a much stronger evidence base than we currently have. The burden of evidence and the clinical utility should be extremely high, because there is a genuine risk of abuse of diagnoses. We provide suggestions about the level of evidence that might be required: transparent and preregistered studies, a better demarcation of the subject area that includes a rationale for focusing on gaming particularly versus a more general behavioral addictions concept, the exploration of non-addiction approaches, and the unbiased exploration of clinical approaches that treat potentially underlying issues, such as depressive mood or social anxiety first. We acknowledge there could be benefits to formalizing gaming disorder, many of which were highlighted by colleagues in their commentaries, but we think they do not yet outweigh the wider societal and public health risks involved. Given the gravity of diagnostic classification and its wider societal impact, we urge our colleagues at the WHO to err on the side of caution for now and postpone the formalization