MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7147530364 · doi:10.1145/3769872.3769882

Enhancing Spatial Learning of Large Command Sets in Two FastTap Menus with Artificial Landmarks

2025· article· W7147530364 on OpenAlexafffund
Sayeem Md Abdullah, Md. Sami Uddin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLandmarkGridSelection (genetic algorithm)Spatial learningSet (abstract data type)Spatial analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatially-stable menus, FastTap, use grids to display commands on touch tablets, where grid lines serve as landmarks, enabling users to quickly learn command locations. While these menus can expand the grid to allow more commands, repetitive lines can weaken landmark aid and hinder spatial learning. While artificial landmarks showed spatial learning benefits in desktop menus, little is known if landmarks can enable spatial learning on tablets with many commands. So, we conducted two studies with different landmarks (standard grid, menu-backdrop image, and coloured blocks) in single-tab and multi-tab FastTap menus with large command sets. Results indicated that people developed spatial memory of commands in all interfaces across two studies. While coloured blocks substantially improved command selection performance in single-tab, both landmarks notably improved selection speed at least during the early learning stages in multi-tab. People also issued significantly more expert selections with landmarks in multi-tab. We demonstrate that artificial landmarks can aid spatial learning in tablets with large command sets, which will help the future design of tablets.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207