MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414798925 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.3616824

Exploring and Modeling the Effects of Eye-Tracking Accuracy and Precision on Gaze-Based Steering in Virtual Environments

2025· article· en· W4414798925 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Virtual realityGazePredictabilityModalitiesEye trackingPath (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.253 · 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