skip to main content
10.1145/3027063.3053233acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract
Public Access

A Comparison of Smooth Pursuit- and Dwell-based Selection at Multiple Levels of Spatial Accuracy

Published:06 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we present a smooth pursuit--based alternative to dwell-based selection for eye-guided user interfaces. Participants attempt to perform both dwell- and pursuit-based selections while we artificially reduce the spatial accuracy of an affordable eye tracker to see how resilient both selection methods are. We find that the time to perform a pursuit-based selection remains consistent even as spatial accuracy degrades, unlike dwell-based selection which takes considerably longer to perform the worse the spatial accuracy becomes. We argue that smooth pursuit--based selection will be important in eye-tracking systems with low spatial accuracy, such as very low cost trackers, certain self-made systems, and calibration-free systems.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

lbw0654.mp4

mp4

66.4 MB

lbw0654p.mp4

mp4

4 MB

References

  1. Augusto Esteves, Eduardo Velloso, Andreas Bulling, and Hans Gellersen. 2015. Orbits: Gaze Interaction for Smart Watches using Smooth Pursuit Eye Movements. Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (2015), 457-- 466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Craig A. Hennessey and Peter D. Lawrence. 2009. Improving the Accuracy and Reliability of Remote System-Calibration-Free Eye-Gaze Tracking. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 56 (2009), 1891--1900. Issue 7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Corey Holland and Oleg Komogortsev. 20 Eye Tracking on Unmodified Common Tablets: Challenges and Solutions. Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (2012), 277--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Kenneth Holmqvist, Marcus Nyström, and Fiona Mulvey. 2012. Eye Tracker Data Quality: What It Is and How to Measure It. Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (2012), 45--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. FOVE Inc. 2016. FOVE: Eye Tracking Virtual Reality Headset. https://www.getfove.com/. (2016). Accessed: 2 January 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Oleg V. Komogortsev, Young Sam Ryu, Do Hyong Koh, and Sandeep M. Gowda. 2009. Instantaneous Saccade Driven Eye Gaze Interaction. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (2009), 140--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Oleg Špakov, Poika Isokoski, Jari Kangas, Deepak Akkil, and Päivi Majaranta. 2016. PursuitAdjuster: An Exploration into the Design Space of Smooth Pursuit-- based Widgets. Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (2016), 287--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Oleg Špakov and Päivi Majaranta. 2012. Enhanced Gaze Interaction using Simple Head Gestures. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (2012), 705--710. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Linda E. Sibert and Robert J.K. Jacob. 2000. Evaluation of Eye Gaze Interaction. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2000), 281--288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Mélodie Vidal, Andreas Bulling, and Hans Gellersen. 2013. Pursuits: Spontaneous Interaction with Displays based on Smooth Pursuit Eye Movement and Moving Targets. Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (2013), 439--448. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Comparison of Smooth Pursuit- and Dwell-based Selection at Multiple Levels of Spatial Accuracy

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2017
      3954 pages
      ISBN:9781450346566
      DOI:10.1145/3027063

      Copyright © 2017 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 May 2017

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI EA '17 Paper Acceptance Rate1,000of5,000submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader