An Investigation of Multimodal Kinematic Template Matching for Ray Pointing Prediction for Target Selection in VR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the use of multimodal input to predict the landing position of a ray pointer while selecting targets in a virtual reality (VR) environment. We first extend a prior 2D Kinematic Template Matching technique to include head movements. This new technique, Head-Coupled Kinematic Template Matching, was found to improve upon the existing 2D approach, with an angular error of 10.0° when a user was 40% of the way through their movement. We then investigate two additional models that incorporated eye gaze, which were both found to further improve the predicted landing positions. The first model, Gaze-Coupled Kinematic Template Matching resulted in angular error of 6.8° for reciprocal target layouts and 9.1° for random target layouts, when a user was 40% of the way through their movement. The second model, Hybrid Kinematic Template Matching, resulted in angular error of 5.2° for reciprocal target layouts and 7.2° for random target layouts when a user was 40% of the way through their movement. We also found that using just the current gaze location resulted in sufficient predictions in many conditions. We reflect on our results by discussing the broader implications of utilizing multimodal input to inform selection predictions 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".