IDEA: Index of Difficulty for Eye Tracking Applications - An Analysis Model for Target Selection Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fitts' law is a prediction model to measure the difficulty level of target selection for pointing devices. However, emerging devices and interaction techniques require more flexible parameters to adopt the original Fitts' law to new circumstances and case scenarios. We propose Index of Difficulty for Eye tracking Applications (IDEA) which integrates Fitts' law with users' feedback from the NASA TLX to measure the difficulty of target selection. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the necessity of contact-free interactions on public and shared devices, thus in this work, we aim to propose a model for evaluating contact-free interaction techniques, which can accurately measure the difficulty of eye tracking applications and can be adapted to children, users with disabilities, and elderly without requiring the acquisition of physiological sensory data. We tested the IDEA model using data from a three-part user study with 33 participants that compared two eye tracking selection techniques, dwell-time, and a multi-modal eye tracking technique using voice commands.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".