Revisiting Performance Models of Distal Pointing Tasks in Virtual Reality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance models of interaction, such as Fitts' law, are important tools for predicting and explaining human motor performance and for designing high-performance user interfaces. Extensive prior work has proposed such models for the 3D interaction task of distal pointing, in which the user points their hand or a device at a distant target in order to select it. However, there is no consensus on how to compute the index of difficulty for distal pointing tasks. We present a preliminary study suggesting that existing models may not be sufficient to model distal pointing performance with current virtual reality technologies. Based on these results, we hypothesized that both the form of the model and the standard method for collecting empirical data for pointing tasks might need to change in order to achieve a more accurate and valid distal pointing model. In our main study, we used a new methodology to collect distal pointing data and evaluated traditional models, purely ballistic models, and two-part models. Ultimately, we found that the best model used a simple Fitts'-law-style index of difficulty with angular measures of amplitude and width.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it