An examination of mobile phone pointing in surface mapped spatial augmented reality
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate mobile phone pointing in Spatial Augmented Reality (SAR), where digital content is mapped onto the surfaces of a real physical environment. Three pointing techniques are compared: raycast, viewport, and direct. A first experiment examines these techniques in a realistic five-projector SAR environment with representative targets distributed across different surfaces. Participants were permitted free movement, so variations in target occlusion and target view angle occurred naturally. A second experiment validates and further generalizes findings by strictly controlling target occlusion and view angle in a simulated SAR pointing task using an AR HMD. Overall, results show raycast is fastest for non-occluded targets, direct is most accurate, and fastest for occluded targets in close proximity , and viewport falls in between. Using the experiment data, we formulate and evaluate a new Fitts’ model combining two spatial configurations in a SAR pointing task to capture key characteristics, initial target occlusion, target view angle, and user movement. Analysis shows it is a better predictor than previous models.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it