Empirical Evaluation of Hybrid Gaze-Controller Selection Techniques in a Gaming Context
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
Controller-based interaction is popular due to the increasing prevalence of console and couch-based games, but is known to be slower and less accurate than aiming with a mouse. In this study we evaluated the performance of five interaction techniques for games to answer the question, if gaze interaction can improve the performance of controller interaction. We compared mouse only, controller only, gaze only with two commonly used gaze and controller hybrid interactions: gaze teleportation and gaze panning. We implemented a targeting game that resembled a Fitts' Law test to evaluate performance, effort, and preference. Our findings show that mouse was the fastest technique and gaze was both the slowest and most error-prone. For the controller-based techniques, players preferred gaze teleportation over the other techniques; however, it only improved performance over the controller for targets that were small and far away.
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 | 0.001 | 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