Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye tracking systems can provide people with severe motor impairments a way to communicate through gaze-based interactions. Such systems transform a user's gaze input into mouse pointer coordinates that can trigger keystrokes on an on-screen keyboard. However, typing using this approach requires large back-and-forth eye movements, and the required effort depends both on the length of the text and the keyboard layout. Motivated by the idea of sketch-based image search, we explore a gaze-based approach where users draw a shape on a sketchpad using gaze input, and the shape is used to search for similar letters, words, and other predefined controls. The sketch-based approach is area efficient (compared to an on-screen keyboard), allows users to create custom commands, and creates opportunities for gaze-based authentication. Since variation in the drawn shapes makes the search difficult, the system can show a guide (e.g., a 14-segment digital display) on the sketchpad so that users can trace their desired shape. In this paper, we take a first step that investigates the feasibility of the sketch-based approach, by examining how well users can trace a given shape using gaze input. We designed an interface where participants traced a set of given shapes. We then compared the similarity of the drawn and traced shapes. Our study results show the potential of the sketch-based approach: users were able to trace shapes reasonably well using gaze input, even for complex shapes involving three letters; shape tracing accuracy for gaze was better than `free-form' hand drawing. We also report on how different shape complexities influence the time and accuracy of the shape tracing tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".