MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888194409 · doi:10.1145/3229434.3229482

Multiplexing spatial memory

2018· article· en· W2888194409 on OpenAlexafffund
Varun Gaur, Md. Sami Uddin, Carl Gutwin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceMultiplexingSet (abstract data type)Spatial multiplexingInterference (communication)Human–computer interactionSmartwatchEmbedded systemWearable computerTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capacity of spatial multi-touch menus such as FastTap is limited by device screen size. We explore the idea of using multiple tabs to increase capacity - multiplexing the tablet's screen space so each location holds multiple items. Earlier work has shown potential of this idea for smartwatches, but no evaluations have considered larger devices. To assess issues with interference-based errors and spatial memory development, we built two FastTap systems with multiple tabs and conducted two studies. We first tested user learning of 16 targets with a training game, and found that participants easily adapted to the multi-tab model, were able to perform memory-based shortcuts, and made few interference-based errors. The second study used realistic drawing tasks and showed that people successfully used the multi-tab FastTap system, with 88% of selections made using shortcuts by the study's end. Our work demonstrates that spatial memory can successfully be multiplexed, and that tabs are a promising way to increase command set sizes for spatial interfaces.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207