Exploring and Modeling the Effects of Eye-Tracking Accuracy and Precision on Gaze-Based Steering in Virtual Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in eye-tracking technology have positioned gaze as an efficient and intuitive input method for Virtual Reality (VR), offering a natural and immersive user experience. As a result, gaze input is now leveraged for fundamental interaction tasks such as selection, manipulation, crossing, and steering. Although several studies have modeled user steering performance across various path characteristics and input methods, our understanding of gaze-based steering in VR remains limited. This gap persists because the unique qualities of eye movements-involving rapid, continuous motions-and the variability in eye-tracking make findings from other input modalities nontransferable to a gaze-based context, underscoring the need for a dedicated investigation into gaze-based steering behaviors and performance. To bridge this gap, we present two user studies to explore and model gaze-based steering. In the first one, user behavior data are collected across various path characteristics and eye-tracking conditions. Based on this data, we propose four refined models that extend the classic Steering Law to predict users' movement time in gaze-based steering tasks, explicitly incorporating the impact of tracking quality. The best-performing model achieves an adjusted R2 of 0.956, corresponding to a 16% improvement in movement time prediction. This model also yields a substantial reduction in AIC (from 1550 to 1132) and BIC (from 1555 to 1142), highlighting improved model quality and better balance between goodness of fit and model complexity. Finally, data from a second study with varied settings, such as a different eye-tracking sampling rate, illustrate the strong robustness and predictability of our models. Finally, we present scenarios and applications that demonstrate how our models can be used to design enhanced gaze-based interactions in VR systems.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".