MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996802399 · doi:10.20380/gi2018.17

EZCursorVR: 2D Selection with Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays

2018· article· en· W2996802399 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Ramcharitar, Robert J. Teather

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Human-Computer Communications Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoystickComputer scienceCursor (databases)Virtual realityRay castingFitts's lawOptical head-mounted displayInput deviceComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceSimulationComputer hardwareRendering (computer graphics)Volume renderingTask (project management)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an evaluation of a new selection technique for virtual reality (VR) systems presented on head-mounted displays. The technique, dubbed EZCursorVR, presents a 2D cursor that moves in a head-fixed plane, simulating 2D desktop-like cursor control for VR. The cursor can be controlled by any 2DOF input device, but also works with 3/6DOF devices using appropriate mappings. We conducted an experiment based on ISO 9241-9, comparing the effectiveness of EZCursorVR using a mouse, a joystick in both velocity-control and position-control mappings, a 2D-constrained ray-based technique, a standard 3D ray, and finally selection via head motion. Results indicate that the mouse offered the highest performance in terms of throughput, movement time, and error rate, while the position-control joystick was worst. The 2D-constrained ray-casting technique proved an effective alternative to the mouse when performing selections using EZCursorVR, offering better performance than standard ray-based 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.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Human-Computer Communications SocietySame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207