We challenge a number of the claims for novelty and innovation made in a recent published paper (Lee et al., 2014) with regard to a computerised methodology that these authors present for assessing eye-hand coordination (EHC). Published work on similar pre-existing computerised systems is discussed and arguments made for these alternative systems being equal, if not superior, in terms of their innovativeness. The commentary does not dispute the usefulness of systems such as the one described by Lee et al. Rather, in the interests of scholarship it provides an accompanying insight into the significant scholarly contributions previously, and contemporaneously, being made by other research groups working in this area.