PinchLens: Applying Spatial Magnification and Adaptive Control-Display Gain for Precise Selection in Virtual Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present PinchLens, a new free-hand target selection technique for acquiring small and dense targets in Virtual Reality. Traditional pinch-based selection does not allow people to precisely manipulate small and dense objects effectively due to tracking and perceptual inaccuracies. Our approach combines spatial magnification, an adaptive control-display gain, and visual feedback to improve selection accuracy. When a user starts the pinching selection process, a magnifying bubble expands the scale of nearby targets, an adaptive control-to-display ratio is applied to the user’s hand for precision, and a cursor is displayed at the estimated pinch point for enhanced visual feedback. We performed a user study to compare our technique to traditional pinch selection and several variations to isolate the impact of each of the technique’s features. The results showed that PinchLens significantly outperformed traditional pinch selection, reducing error rates from 18.9% to 1.9%. Furthermore, we found that magnification was the dominant feature to produce this improvement, while the adaptive control-display gain and visual cursor of pinch were also helpful in several conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".