Effectiveness of eye-gaze input method: Comparison of speed and accuracy among three eye-gaze input method

Atsuo Murata, Makoto Moriwaka

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Effectiveness of eye-gaze input methods was examined in click, drag, and menu selection tasks. In a click task, three eye-gaze methods were (c)-(i) eye-gaze input with fixation, (c)-(ii) eye-gaze input with pressing BS key, and (c)-(iii) eye-gaze input with voice (voice1). Method (d)-(i) eye-gaze input with pressing BS key and (d)-(ii) eye-gaze input with voice (voice1) were compared for the drag task. In the menus selection task, the performance was compared between Method (m)-(i) eye-gaze input with voice (voice1) and (m)-(ii) eye-gaze input with voice (voice2: uttering one of the following menu items: “save”, “print”, “cut”, “copy”, and “paste”). The pointing time in the click task increased according to the following order: (c)-(i) eye-gaze input with fixation, (c)-(ii) eye-gaze input with pressing BS key, and (c)-(iii) eye-gaze input with voice (voice1). The pointing accuracy of (c)-(i) was nearly equal to 100% and by far better than that of Method (c)-(ii) and (c)-(iii). Concerning the drag, Method (d)-(i) tended to be faster than Method (d)-(ii). However, the pointing accuracy of both methods was not satisfactory and ranged from 70% to 80%. This indicated that Method (d)-(i) and (d)-(ii) must be further improved when used for the drag task. The pointing time in the menu selection task did not differ significantly between Method (m)-(i) and (m)-(ii). The pointing accuracy of Method (m)-(ii) was by far higher than that of Method (m)-(i) when the target size was small. The larger target size tended to lead to faster and accurate pointing for all three tasks. It seems that the better pointing method differs according to the eye-gaze method. Other than the click task, the pointing accuracy was at most 90%. Therefore, future research should propose an effective method to increase the prediction accuracy for both drag and menu selection tasks.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationAdvances in Usability, User Experience and Assistive Technology - Proceedings of the AHFE 2018 International Conferences on Usability and User Experience and Human Factors and Assistive Technology, 2018
PublisherSpringer Verlag
Pages763-772
Number of pages10
ISBN (Print)9783319949468
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2019
EventAHFE International Conferences on Usability and User Experience and Human Factors and Assistive Technology, 2018 - Orlando, United States
Duration: Jul 21 2018Jul 25 2018

Publication series

NameAdvances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
Volume794
ISSN (Print)2194-5357

Other

OtherAHFE International Conferences on Usability and User Experience and Human Factors and Assistive Technology, 2018
CountryUnited States
CityOrlando
Period7/21/187/25/18

Keywords

  • Click
  • Drag
  • HCI
  • Menu selection
  • Pointing time
  • Prediction accuracy
  • Subjective rating

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Control and Systems Engineering
  • Computer Science(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Effectiveness of eye-gaze input method: Comparison of speed and accuracy among three eye-gaze input method'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Murata, A., & Moriwaka, M. (2019). Effectiveness of eye-gaze input method: Comparison of speed and accuracy among three eye-gaze input method. In Advances in Usability, User Experience and Assistive Technology - Proceedings of the AHFE 2018 International Conferences on Usability and User Experience and Human Factors and Assistive Technology, 2018 (pp. 763-772). (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Vol. 794). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94947-5_75