MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088301560 · doi:10.20380/gi2020.16

Selection Performance Using a Scaled Virtual Stylus Cursor in VR

2020· article· en· W3088301560 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Amir Ahmad Didehkhorshid, Robert J. Teather

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Human-Computer Communications Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStylusComputer scienceFitts's lawCursor (databases)RangingVirtual realityHaptic technologyImage warpingThroughputWord error rateTask (project management)Human–computer interactionComputer visionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a surface warping technique we call warped virtual surfaces (WVS). WVS is similar to applying CD gain to mouse cursor on a screen and is used with traditionally 1:1 input devices, in our case, a tablet and stylus, for use with VR head-mounted displays (HMDs). WVS allows users to interact with arbitrarily large virtual panels in VR while getting the benefits of passive haptic feedback from a fixed-sized physical panel. To determine the extent to which WVS affects user performance, we conducted an experiment with 24 participants using a Fitts' law reciprocal tapping task to compare different scale factors. Results indicate there was a significant difference in movement time for large scale factors. However, for throughput (ranging from 3.35 3.47 bps) and error rate (ranging from 3.6 5.4%), our analysis did not find a significant difference between scale factors. Using non-inferiority statistical testing (a form of equivalence testing), we show that performance in terms of throughput and error rate for large scale factors is no worse than a 1-to-1 mapping. Our results suggest WVS is a promising way of providing large tactile surfaces in VR, using small physical surfaces, and with little impact on user performance.

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)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Human-Computer Communications SocietySame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207