The perils of confounding factors: How Fitts' law experiments can lead to false conclusions

The design of Fitts' historical reciprocal tapping experiment gravely confounds index of difficulty ID with target distance D: Summary statistics for the candidate Fitts model and a competing model may appear identical, and the validity of Fitts' model for some tasks can be legitimately questioned. We show that the contamination of ID by either target distance D or width W is due to the common practices of pooling and averaging data belonging to different distance-width (D, W) pairs for the same ID, and taking a geometric progression for values of D and W. We analyze a case study of the validation of Fitts' law in eye-gaze movements, where an unfortunate experimental design has misled researchers into believing that eye-gaze movements are not ballistic. We then provide simple guidelines to prevent confounds: Practitioners should carefully design the experimental conditions of (D, W), fully distinguish data acquired for different conditions, and put less emphasis on r² scores. We also recommend investigating the use of stochastic sampling for D and W.