Auxilio and Beyond: Comparative Evaluation, Usability, and Design Guidelines for Head Movement-based Assistive Mouse Controllers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper limb disability due to neurological disorders or other factors restricts computer interaction for affected individuals using a generic optical mouse. This work reports the findings of a comparative evaluation of Auxilio, a sensor-based wireless head-mounted Assistive Mouse Controller (AMC), that facilitates computer interaction for such individuals. Combining commercially available, low-cost motion and infrared sensors, Auxilio utilizes head movements and cheek muscle twitches for mouse control. Its performance in pointing tasks with subjects without motor impairments has been juxtaposed against a commercially available and patented vision-based head-tracking AMC developed for similar stakeholders. Furthermore, our study evaluates the usability of Auxilio using the System Usability Scale, supplemented by a qualitative analysis of participant interview transcripts to identify the strengths and weaknesses of both AMCs. Experimental results demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of Auxilio, and we summarize our key findings into design guidelines for the development of similar future AMCs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".