Pinch, Click, or Dwell: Comparing Different Selection Techniques for Eye-Gaze-Based Pointing in Virtual 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
While a pinch action is gaining popularity for selection of virtual objects in eye-gaze-based systems, it is still unknown how well this method performs compared to other popular alternatives, e.g., a button click or a dwell action. To determine pinch’s performance in terms of execution time, error rate, and throughput, we implemented a Fitts’ law task in Virtual Reality (VR) where the subjects pointed with their (eye-)gaze and selected / activated the targets by pinch, clicking a button, or dwell. Results revealed that although pinch was slower, made more errors, and had less throughput compared to button clicks, none of these differences were significant. Dwell exhibited the least errors but was significantly slower and achieved less throughput compared to the other conditions. Based on these findings, we conclude that the pinch gesture is a reasonable alternative to button clicks for eye-gaze-based VR systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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