MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401910133 · doi:10.1145/3689434

HeadShift: Head Pointing with Dynamic Control-Display Gain

2024· article· en· W4401910133 on OpenAlexaff
Haopeng Wang, Ludwig Sidenmark, Florian Weidner, Joshua Newn, Hans Gellersen

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsHead (geology)Computer scienceAutomatic gain controlGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Head pointing is widely used for hands-free input in head-mounted displays (HMDs). The primary role of head movement in an HMD is to control the viewport based on absolute mapping of head rotation to the 3D environment. Head pointing is conventionally supported by the same 1:1 mapping of input with a cursor fixed in the centre of the view, but this requires exaggerated head movement and limits input granularity. In this work, we propose to adopt dynamic gain to improve ergonomics and precision, and introduce the HeadShift technique. The design of HeadShift is grounded in natural eye-head coordination to manage control of the viewport and the cursor at different speeds. We evaluated HeadShift in a Fitts’ Law experiment and on three different applications in VR, finding the technique to reduce error rate and effort. The findings are significant as they show that gain can be adopted effectively for head pointing while ensuring that the cursor is maintained within a comfortable eye-in-head viewing range.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Computer-Human InteractionSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207