MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025230668 · doi:10.1109/vrw50115.2020.00012

Precision vs. Power Grip: A Comparison of Pen Grip Styles for Selection in Virtual Reality

2020· article· en· W3025230668 on OpenAlex
Anil Ufuk Batmaz, Aunnoy K Mutasim, 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

Venue2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realitySelection (genetic algorithm)Grip strengthComputer sciencePower (physics)Artificial intelligenceMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While commercial Virtual Reality (VR) controllers are mostly designed to be held in a power grip, previous research showed that using pen-like devices with a precision grip can improve user performance for selection in VR, potentially even matching that achievable with a mouse. However, it is not known if the improvement is due to the grip style. In this work, 12 subjects performed a Fitts’ task at 3 different depth conditions with a pen-like input device used in both a precision and power grip. Our results identify that the precision grip significantly improves user performance in VR through a significant reduction in error rate, but we did not observe a significant effect of the distance of targets from the user. We believe that our results are useful for designers and researchers to improve the usability of and user performance in VR systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.272 · 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