MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210312716 · doi:10.1145/3485279.3485292

Selection Performance Using a Smartphone in VR with Redirected Input

2021· article· en· W3210312716 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on Spatial User Interaction · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceTouchscreenAndroid (operating system)Virtual realityCursor (databases)Immersion (mathematics)Human–computer interactionComputer visionOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method to track a smartphone in VR using a fiducial marker displayed on the screen. Using WebRTC transmission protocol, we capture smartphone touchscreen input and the screen contents, copying them to a virtual representation in VR. We present two Fitts’ law experiments assessing the performance of selecting targets displayed on the virtual smartphone screen using this method. The first compares direct vs. indirect input (i.e., virtual smartphone co-located with the physical smartphone, or not), and reveals there is no difference in performance due to input indirection. The second experiment assesses the influence of input scaling, i.e., decoupling the virtual cursor from the actual finger position on the smartphone screen so as to provide a larger virtual tactile surface. Results indicate a small effect for extreme scale factors. We discuss implications for the use of smartphones as input devices in VR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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