MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154543425 · doi:10.1145/2541016.2541024

Pseudo-pressure detection and its use in predictive text entry on touchscreens

2013· article· en· W2154543425 on OpenAlex
Ahmed Sabbir Arif, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceText entryPoint (geometry)Key (lock)Speech recognitionArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingHuman–computer interactionComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we first present a new hybrid technique that combines existing time- and touch-point-based approaches to simulate pressure detection on standard touchscreens. Results of two user studies show that the new hybrid technique can distinguish (at least) two pressure levels, where the first requires on average 1.04 N and the second 3.24 N force on the surface. Then, we present a novel pressure-based predictive text entry technique that utilizes our hybrid pressure detection to enable users to bypass incorrect predictions by applying extra pressure on the next key. For inputting short English phrases with 10% non-dictionary words a comparison with conventional text entry in a study showed that the new technique increases entry speed by 9 % and decreases error rates by 25%. Also, most users (83%) favour the new technique. Author Keywords Mobile phone; touchscreen; mobile text entry; predictive

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207