Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Touch Survey: Comparison with Paper and Web Questionnaires

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Tomoyo Sasao, Shin'ichi Konomi, Masatoshi Arikawa, Hideyuki Fujita

Human-Computer Interaction · Submitted 17 May 2014

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Our findings suggest that a touch-based interface allows users to complete ranking questions easily, quickly, and accurately although it can increase the time to complete a location input task for well-known, prominent locations.

how it is stated · hedged possibility 0.98 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1405.4354 (version 1)
Pith ID5ALEWMJ4, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationHideyuki Fujita, Masatoshi Arikawa, Shin'ichi Konomi, Tomoyo Sasao. "Touch Survey: Comparison with Paper and Web Questionnaires." arXiv:1405.4354 (2014). https://pith.science/paper/5ALEWMJ4
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,298 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.92 · human participants 0.91 · controlled comparison 0.72 · randomized assignment 0.03 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.89 · mentions code or data availability 0.03.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We developed a prototype of touch-based survey tool for tablets and conducted an experiment to compare interaction patterns of touch-based, PC-based, and paper-based questionnaires. Our findings suggest that a touch-based interface allows users to complete ranking questions easily, quickly, and accurately although it can increase the time to complete a location input task for well-known, prominent locations.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We developed a prototype of touch-based survey tool for tablets and conducted an experiment to compare interaction patterns of touch-based, PC-based, and paper-based questionnaires. contribution 0.76 0.97 0.04 asserted 0.97
s1 Our findings suggest that a touch-based interface allows users to complete ranking questions easily, quickly, and accurately although it can increase the time to complete a location input task for well-known, prominent locations. result 0.89 0.96 0.88 hedged possibility 0.98

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 0.93 · evidence from observation or experiment 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We developed a prototype of touch-based survey tool for tablets and conducted an experiment to compare interaction patterns of touch-based, PC-based, and paper-based questionnaires. Our findings suggest that a touch-based interface allows users to complete ranking questions easily, quickly, and accurately although it can increase the time to complete a location input task for well-known, prominent locations.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.