MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098600957 · doi:10.1145/3418413

Necessary and Unnecessary Distractor Avoidance Movements Affect User Behaviors in Crossing Operations

2020· article· en· W3098600957 on OpenAlexaff
Shota Yamanaka, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstacleComputer scienceObject (grammar)Path (computing)Affect (linguistics)Obstacle avoidanceFitts's lawComputer visionMotion (physics)TrajectoryArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPsychologySimulationTask (project management)CommunicationEngineeringLawRobotMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “crossing time” to pass between objects in lassoing tasks is predicted by Fitts’ law. When an unwanted object, or obstacle , intrudes into the user’s path, users curve the stroke to avoid hitting that obstacle. We empirically show that, in the presence of an obstacle, modified Fitts models for pointing with obstacle avoidance can significantly improve the prediction accuracy of movement time compared with standard Fitts’ law. Yet, we also found that when an object is (only) close to the crossing path, i.e., a distractor , users still curve their stroke, even though the object does not intrude. We tested the effects of distractor proximity and length. While the crossing motion is modified by a nearby distractor, our results also identify that overall its effect on crossing times was small, and thus Fitts’ law can still be applied safely with distractors.

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)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Computer-Human InteractionSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207