A Fitts Law comparison of eye tracking and manual input in the selection of visual targets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a Fitts' Law evaluation of a number of eye tracking and manual input devices in the selection of large visual targets. We compared performance of two eye tracking techniques, manual click and dwell time click, with that of mouse and stylus. Results show eye tracking with manual click outperformed the mouse by 16%, with dwell time click 46% faster. However, eye tracking conditions suffered a high error rate of 11.7% for manual click and 43% for dwell time click conditions. After Welford correction eye tracking still appears to outperform manual input, with IPs of 13.8 bits/s for dwell time click, and 10.9 bits/s for manual click. Eye tracking with manual click provides the best tradeoff between speed and accuracy, and was preferred by 50% of participants. Mouse and stylus had IPs of 4.7 and 4.2 respectively. However, their low error rate of 5% makes these techniques more suitable for refined target selection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it