Abstract: Assessing the cognitive impact of user interfaces is a shared focus of human-computer interaction researchers and cognitive scientists. Methods of cognitive assessment based on data derived from the system itself, rather than external apparatus, have the potential to be applied in a range of scenarios. The current study applied methods of analyzing kinematics to mouse movements in a computer-based task, alongside the detection response task, a standard workload measure. Sixty-five participants completed a task in which stationary stimuli were tar;geted using a mouse, with a within-subjects factor of task workload based on the number of targets to be hovered over with the mouse (one/two), and a between-subjects factor based on whether both targets (exhaustive) or just one target (minimum-time) needed to be hovered over to complete a trial when two targets were presented. Mouse movement onset times were slower and mouse movement trajectories exhibited more submovements when two targets were presented, than when one target was presented. Responses to the detection response task were also slower in this condition, indicating higher cognitive workload. However, these differences were only found for participants in the exhaustive condition, suggesting those in the minimum-time condition were not affected by the presence of the second target. Mouse movement trajectory results agreed with other measures of workload and task performance. Our findings suggest this analysis can be applied to workload assessments in real-world scenarios.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture may result in poor sensorimotor knee control and, consequentially, adapted movement strategies to help maintain knee stability. Whether patients display atypical lower limb mechanics during weight acceptance of stair descent at different time frames after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the presence of atypical lower limb mechanics during the weight acceptance phase of stair descent among athletes at early, middle, and late time frames after unilateral ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 49 athletes with ACLR were classified into 3 groups according to time after ACLR-early (<6 months; n = 17), middle (6-18 months; n = 16), and late (>18 months; n = 16)-and compared with asymptomatic athletes (control; n = 18). Sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle angles; angular velocities; moments; and powers were compared between the ACLR groups' injured and noninjured legs and the control group as well as between legs within groups using functional data analysis methods. RESULTS: All 3 ACLR groups showed greater knee flexion angles and moments than the control group for injured and noninjured legs. For the other outcomes, the early group had, compared with the control group, less hip power absorption, more knee power absorption, lower ankle plantarflexion angle, lower ankle dorsiflexion moment, and less ankle power absorption for the injured leg and more knee power absorption and higher vertical ground reaction force for the noninjured leg. In addition, the late group showed differences from the control group for the injured leg revealing more knee power absorption and lower ankle plantarflexion angle. Only the early group took a longer time than the control group to complete weight acceptance and demonstrated asymmetry for multiple outcomes. CONCLUSION: Athletes with different time frames after ACLR revealed atypically large knee angles and moments during weight acceptance of stair descent for both the injured and the noninjured legs. These findings may express a chronically adapted strategy to increase knee control. In contrast, atypical hip and ankle mechanics seem restricted to an early time frame after ACLR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation after ACLR should include early training in controlling weight acceptance. Including a control group is essential when evaluating movement patterns after ACLR because both legs may be affected.