MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396833536 · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642084

Better Definition and Calculation of Throughput and Effective Parameters for Steering to Account for Subjective Speed-accuracy Tradeoffs

2024· article· en· W4396833536 on OpenAlexaff
Nobuhito Kasahara, Yosuke Oba, Shota Yamanaka, Anil Ufuk Batmaz, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, Homei Miyashita

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThroughputComputer scienceTask (project management)TrajectoryMetric (unit)Path (computing)Fitts's lawPerformance metricAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Fitts’ law studies to investigate pointing, throughput is used to characterize the performance of input devices and users, which is claimed to be independent of task difficulty or the user’s subjective speed-accuracy bias. While throughput has been recognized as a useful metric for target-pointing tasks, the corresponding formulation for path-steering tasks and its evaluation have not been thoroughly examined in the past. In this paper, we conducted three experiments using linear, circular, and sine-wave path shapes to propose and investigate a novel formulation for the effective parameters and the throughput of steering tasks. Our results show that the effective width substantially improves the fit to data with mixed speed-accuracy biases for all task shapes. Effective width also smoothed out the throughput across all biases, while the usefulness of the effective amplitude depended on the task shape. Our study thus advances the understanding of user performance in trajectory-based tasks.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207