Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 113 references

For people with low vision, gaze points fastest when sitting and matches head overall, but head stays most stable; central vision loss uniquely favors finger control.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 21:30 UTC pith:J3TTM7ID

load-bearing objection Solid first empirical ranking of head/gaze/finger AR selection for low vision; age confound hurts the between-group framing more than the within-PLV result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06778 v1 pith:J3TTM7ID submitted 2026-07-07 cs.HC

Head, Gaze, or Finger? Comparing Object Selection Techniques in Augmented Reality for People with Low Vision

Ruijia Chen , Tianyi Zhang , Sanbrita Mondal , Yukang Yan , Yuhang Zhao This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords AccessibilityAugmented RealityAssistive TechnologiesPeople with Low VisionSelection TechniquesGaze InteractionHead PointingDwell Confirmation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

People with low vision need AR systems that let them choose what to enhance rather than accepting always-on clutter or designer-chosen object categories. This study is the first empirical comparison of the three common hands-free and hand-based ways to select real objects in AR—head pointing, gaze pointing, and finger pointing, each confirmed by dwell—across sitting shelf tasks and walking tasks, with both low-vision and sighted participants. It shows that gaze still lands on targets quickest for low-vision users when they are seated and finishes overall selection about as fast as head pointing in both contexts, yet reduced gaze stability makes head pointing the most reliable and least mentally demanding option. Participants who have central vision loss and rely on a preferred retinal locus reverse the usual ranking and prefer finger pointing for a greater sense of control. The work therefore supplies concrete evidence for which techniques to ship as defaults, which to offer as options, and how low-vision conditions reshape the classic speed-stability trade-off that designers of selection-based vision aids must respect.

Core claim

For people with low vision, gaze-based selection enables the fastest initial pointing when sitting and achieves overall selection times comparable to head-based selection in both sitting and walking scenarios; reduced gaze stability nevertheless leaves head-based selection the most stable and least mentally demanding technique, while participants with central vision loss uniquely prefer finger-based selection for greater sense of control.

What carries the argument

Three pointing techniques (head, gaze, finger) paired with a fixed 0.8 s dwell confirmation, evaluated via First-Attempt-split measures of pointing time, confirmation time, re-entries, and dual-task walking cost on real objects of two sizes in stationary and dynamic AR scenes.

Load-bearing premise

Between-group differences between low-vision and sighted participants can be attributed mainly to visual ability rather than the large unmatched age gap and related motor or attention confounds.

What would settle it

A age-matched or age-stratified replication that still finds the same Vision main effects on selection and pointing time, and the same head-over-gaze stability advantage for small targets under walking, would confirm the claim; disappearance of those effects once age is controlled would falsify it.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Head pointing can be shipped as the robust default selection technique for low-vision AR, with gaze offered as a fast alternative for large stationary targets after accessible calibration.
  • Systems should expose multiple selection modalities rather than a single technique, because central-vision-loss users reverse the preference ranking.
  • Dwell confirmation is a weak match for gaze under walking or small-target conditions and should be replaced or supplemented by alternative triggers for mobile use.
  • Cursor design must adapt size, brightness and contrast for low vision while avoiding occlusion of small targets, especially for head- and gaze-locked cursors.
  • Future selection-based vision-enhancement systems can safely adopt these techniques as the interaction substrate once the stability and preference findings are respected.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Accessible gaze calibration that relocates the cursor onto a preferred retinal locus may turn gaze into a viable long-term option for many central-vision-loss users after short practice.
  • The same speed-stability trade-off will reappear in any dual-task AR navigation or wayfinding aid, so designers should default to head for confirmation-critical moments.
  • Compounded low acuity plus severe field loss may mark a natural boundary beyond which pure pointing becomes unreliable and hybrid or intent-prediction methods become necessary.
  • Real-world clutter, occlusion and low-contrast targets will likely amplify the stability gap between head and gaze beyond the clean lab setting reported here.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods AR study comparing head-, gaze-, and finger-based pointing with dwell confirmation for object selection by 20 people with low vision (PLV) and 18 sighted controls, in sitting (shelf targets) and walking (stop-sign) scenarios. Using real objects, custom gaze calibration (including PRL adjustment for central scotomas), and metrics split at a defined First Attempt moment, the authors find that for PLV gaze yields the fastest initial pointing when sitting and overall selection times comparable to head in both scenarios, while head is most stable and least mentally demanding; a small CVL subgroup uniquely prefers finger. Analyses use ART ANOVA and mixed-effects models, with qualitative thematic coding of preferences and challenges.

Significance. If the within-PLV technique ranking holds, this is a useful first empirical map of accessible AR selection for low vision and directly informs selection-based vision-augmentation systems. Strengths include real-object tasks (not only virtual targets), reported calibration error (~1.5°), an explicit First Attempt definition to reduce Midas-touch artifacts, counterbalancing, dwell piloting, and transparent mixed quantitative/qualitative methods. The CVL/PRL discussion and design implications (multiple techniques, head as default, alternatives to dwell, adaptive cursors) are practically relevant even if some subgroup claims remain exploratory.

major comments (3)
  1. Sections 3.1, 3.7.1, and 4.1 report large Vision main effects on SelectionTime and PointingTime (e.g., stationary SelectionTime F1,34=30.5, η²p=.47) without age matching, stratification, or covariate control, despite a large age gap (PLV M=58.7, SD=19.6 vs sighted M=36.1, SD=15.6). Between-group claims that attribute slower performance primarily to low vision are therefore under-supported. The load-bearing within-PLV Technique ranking is less threatened, but Vision contrasts should be reframed as exploratory or re-analyzed with age as a covariate / matched subsample, and age limitations stated clearly in Results and Discussion.
  2. Section 4.2.3 and the abstract claim that participants with central vision loss uniquely preferred finger-based selection for greater control. Only four CVL participants are described (L13–L15, L20), with preference/control statements concentrated on L14 and L20 (who also had peripheral loss). This n is too small for a general CVL preference claim. Soften abstract/results language to exploratory case observations, report individual patterns, and avoid implying a robust subgroup effect until larger CVL samples are available.
  3. Sections 3.5 and 5.3–5.4 use high-contrast yellow jars and stop signs in a well-lit lab with clear boundaries. The central claim about technique suitability for selection-based AR augmentations is framed for real-world use, yet low-contrast, cluttered, or ambiguous targets—common for PLV—are not tested. Stability advantages of head over gaze may shrink or reverse under harder visibility. Either add a low-contrast/clutter condition or substantially qualify external validity so that design recommendations (e.g., head as default) are not over-generalized from ideal targets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical HCI user study with operational performance metrics; results do not reduce to fitted parameters or self-definitional claims.

full rationale

This paper is a mixed-methods empirical comparison of three AR selection techniques (head, gaze, finger with dwell confirmation) for people with low vision versus sighted controls, in sitting and walking scenarios. The load-bearing claims are statistical findings from ART ANOVA / mixed-effects models on logged measures (SelectionTime, PointingTime, ConfirmationTime, ReentryTimes, WalkingTime) plus thematic analysis of interviews. These measures are operationally defined from cursor/gaze events (e.g., First Attempt as first fixation on target for gaze, or 70 ms overlap for head/finger; dwell threshold 0.8 s; timeout 20 s) and do not derive from or predict each other by construction. Thresholds for acuity (20/100) and field (60°) are analysis grouping choices, not circular. Self-citations (e.g., prior systems by overlapping authors such as VisiMark, CookAR, GazePrompt) appear only in Related Work as motivation for selection-based augmentation; they are not used as uniqueness theorems, fitted inputs, or load-bearing premises for the performance results. No ansatz is smuggled in; no known result is renamed as a first-principles derivation. The derivation chain is simply: recruit participants → run counterbalanced trials → log events → analyze → report. Score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

This is an empirical HCI experiment, not a formal derivation. Load-bearing choices are experimental parameters and analysis cutoffs that shape measured performance and subgroup claims, plus domain assumptions that dwell-based pointing is a fair common confirmation method and that lab shelf/walk tasks represent selection for AR augmentation.

free parameters (6)
  • dwell_time_threshold = 0.8 s
    Fixed at 0.8s from prior literature and a small non-representative pilot (2 sighted, 4 PLV); directly affects ConfirmationTime and technique rankings for unstable gaze.
  • cursor_radius = 1.5°
    Set to 1.5° visual angle at 1 m to match reported eye-tracker accuracy; affects overlap detection and perceived stability.
  • first_attempt_overlap_threshold = 70 ms
    70 ms continuous overlap used to define First Attempt for head/finger, splitting PointingTime vs ConfirmationTime.
  • visual_acuity_split = 20/100
    20/100 better-eye threshold defines LowAcuity vs HighAcuity for mixed-effects analyses among PLV.
  • peripheral_field_split = <60°
    Remaining field <60° defines SevereFieldLoss vs MildFieldLoss; drives compounded-effect claims.
  • trial_timeout = 20 s
    20 s timeout; used as imputed SelectionTime for L14 failures in dynamic task.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Dwell-based confirmation is an appropriate common confirmation mechanism for fairly comparing head, gaze, and finger pointing for PLV.
    Section 3.2 adopts dwell for hands-free reliability; later discussion notes it may be unsuitable for mobile gaze, so rankings partly depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption Shelf jar selection and walking stop-sign selection adequately represent stationary and on-the-go real-world AR object selection for augmentation.
    Section 3.5–3.6 and 5.3; high-contrast lab targets and simple routes may understate clutter, occlusion, and dual-task demands.
  • domain assumption Machine-learning gaze estimation with post-hoc multi-direction offset correction (and PRL cursor placement for CVL) yields usable gaze pointing for PLV.
    Section 3.4 reports mean angular error ~1.51° for 15 PLV; CVL handling is manual and multi-PRL issues remain.
  • standard math Standard nonparametric/mixed-effects inference (ART ANOVA, LMMs/GLMMs with participant random intercepts) validly supports technique and vision comparisons.
    Section 3.7.1; conventional for HCI repeated measures, though age imbalance is unmodeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Vision-group differences primarily reflect low vision rather than demographic confounds such as age.
    Implicit in Vision main-effect interpretations in Section 4.1 despite large mean age gap (58.7 vs 36.1).
invented entities (1)
  • First Attempt moment no independent evidence
    purpose: Operational split between pointing and confirmation stages to reduce Midas-touch contamination of landing time.
    Defined in Section 3.7.1 as first fixation on target (gaze) or ≥70 ms overlap (head/finger); analysis construct, not a physical entity. Independent evidence is definitional only.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 32684 in / 3746 out tokens · 45303 ms · 2026-07-10T21:30:37.729170+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Augmented reality (AR) can enhance visual perception for people with low vision (PLV) by overlaying multimodal information. Selection-based augmentation further allows users to flexibly choose and augment relevant information while reducing distraction and visual clutter. However, little is known about the ability and preferences of PLV in performing object selection techniques in AR, considering their potential visual and gaze control challenges. To understand what selection techniques are suitable for PLV to support selection-based AR augmentations, we conducted a mixed-methods study with 20 PLV and 18 sighted controls who performed target selection tasks using three input techniques -- head, gaze, and finger pointing with dwell-based confirmation -- in two real-world scenarios (sitting vs. on the go). We found that for PLV, gaze-based selection enabled the fastest initial pointing when sitting and comparable overall selection time to head-based selection in both scenarios; however, due to reduced gaze stability, head-based selection remained the most stable and the least mentally demanding. Uniquely, participants with central vision loss preferred finger-based selection, reporting a greater sense of control. Our results provide empirical insights into accessible AR interaction techniques and selection-based vision enhancements for PLV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06778 by Ruijia Chen, Sanbrita Mondal, Tianyi Zhang, Yuhang Zhao, Yukang Yan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We investigated low-vision users’ performance and experience with head-, gaze-, and finger-based selection techniques in sitting and walking scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stationary scenario setup (left): a shelf with eight target locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mean SelectionTime and PointingTime across different techniques, target sizes, and scenarios. Orange color represents performance on small targets, while blue represents large targets. In the stationary scenario, gaze-based selection consistently achieved the fastest initial target landing and overall selection time for sighted users and for PVL selecting large targets. However, this advantage diminished u… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean ConfirmationTime and ReentryTimes across techniques, target sizes, and scenarios. Head-based dwelling remained the most stable across all conditions, whereas finger-based dwelling the least. The advantage of head-based dwelling over gaze was especially pronounced for PLV when selecting small targets. *** denotes 𝑝 < .001, and ** denotes 𝑝 < .01. yielded the slowest performance (𝑒𝑠𝑡 .𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟−𝑔𝑎𝑧𝑒 = 120… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 113 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Microsoft Build 2026. 2026. Head-gaze and commit - Mixed Reality — learn.microsoft.com. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed- reality/design/gaze-and-commit-head. [Accessed 17-03-2026]

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Kaleb Abbott, Kara S Hanson, and James Lally. 2024. Prevalence of dry eye disease in the low vision population at the University of Colorado.Journal of Optometry17, 2 (2024), 100501

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    I can run at night!

    Yuki Abe, Keisuke Matsushima, Kotaro Hara, Daisuke Sakamoto, and Tetsuo Ono. 2025. “I can run at night!": Using Augmented Reality to Support Night- time Guided Running for Low-vision Runners. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Hossein Ameri, Debbie Mitra, and Mark Humayun. 2019. Enhanced depth navigation through augmented reality depth mapping in patients with low vision.Scientific reports9, 1 (2019), 11230

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Mihai Bâce, Teemu Leppänen, David Gil De Gomez, and Argenis Ramirez Gomez

    work page

  6. [6]

    In SIGGRAPH ASIA 2016 Mobile Graphics and Interactive Applications

    ubiGaze: ubiquitous augmented reality messaging using gaze gestures. In SIGGRAPH ASIA 2016 Mobile Graphics and Interactive Applications. 1–5

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Chris Baumann and Kai Dierkes. 2023. Neon accuracy test report.Pupil Labs10 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Ana M Bernardos, David Gómez, and José R Casar. 2016. A comparison of head pose and deictic pointing interaction methods for smart environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction32, 4 (2016), 325–351

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Jonas Blattgerste, Patrick Renner, and Thies Pfeiffer. 2018. Advantages of eye- gaze over head-gaze-based selection in virtual and augmented reality under varying field of views. InProceedings of the workshop on communication by gaze interaction. 1–9

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    Norman E Breslow and David G Clayton. 1993. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models.Journal of the American statistical Association 88, 421 (1993), 9–25

    work page 1993

  12. [12]

    Di Laura Chen, Marcello Giordano, Hrvoje Benko, Tovi Grossman, and Stephanie Santosa. 2023. Gazeraycursor: Facilitating virtual reality target selection by blending gaze and controller raycasting. InProceedings of the 29th ACM Sympo- sium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. 1–11

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Ruijia Chen, Junru Jiang, Pragati Maheshwary, Brianna R Cochran, and Yuhang Zhao. 2025. VisiMark: Characterizing and Augmenting Landmarks for People with Low Vision in Augmented Reality to Support Indoor Navigation. InPro- ceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Xiuli Chen, Aditya Acharya, Antti Oulasvirta, and Andrew Howes. 2021. An adaptive model of gaze-based selection. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis.The journal of positive psychology12, 3 (2017), 297–298

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    2013.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

    Jacob Cohen. 2013.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. rout- ledge

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    Nathan Cournia, John D Smith, and Andrew T Duchowski. 2003. Gaze-vs. hand- based pointing in virtual environments. InCHI’03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 772–773

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    Michael D Crossland, Louise E Culham, Stamatina A Kabanarou, and Gary S Rubin. 2005. Preferred retinal locus development in patients with macular disease.Ophthalmology112, 9 (2005), 1579–1585

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    Heiko Drewes, Mohamed Khamis, and Florian Alt. 2019. Dialplates: Enabling pursuits-based user interfaces with large target numbers. InProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. 1–10

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Augusto Esteves, Yonghwan Shin, and Ian Oakley. 2020. Comparing selection mechanisms for gaze input techniques in head-mounted displays.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies139 (2020), 102414

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Augusto Esteves, Eduardo Velloso, Andreas Bulling, and Hans Gellersen. 2015. Orbits: Gaze interaction for smart watches using smooth pursuit eye movements. InProceedings of the 28th annual ACM symposium on user interface software & technology. 457–466

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Jacqui Fashimpaur, Kenrick Kin, and Matt Longest. 2020. Pinchtype: Text entry for virtual and augmented reality using comfortable thumb to fingertip pinches. InExtended abstracts of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–7

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Federal Highway Administration. 2003. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Part 4E: Pedestrian Control Features. https://mutcd.fhwa. dot.gov/HTM/2003/part4/part4e.htm. U.S. Department of Transportation

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Frederick L Ferris III, Aaron Kassoff, George H Bresnick, and Ian Bailey. 1982. New visual acuity charts for clinical research.American journal of ophthalmology 94, 1 (1982), 91–96

    work page 1982

  25. [25]

    American Foundation for the Blind. 2026. Low Vision and Legal Blindness Terms and Descriptions — afb.org. https://afb.org/blindness-and-low-vision/eye- conditions/low-vision-and-legal-blindness-terms-and-descriptions. [Accessed 27-03-2026]

    work page 2026

  26. [26]

    Dylan R Fox, Ahmad Ahmadzada, Clara T Friedman, Shiri Azenkot, Marlena A Chu, Roberto Manduchi, and Emily A Cooper. 2023. Using augmented reality to cue obstacles for people with low vision.Optics Express31, 4 (2023), 6827–6848

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Andrzej Gałecki and Tomasz Burzykowski. 2012. Linear mixed-effects model. In Linear mixed-effects models using R: a step-by-step approach. Springer, 245–273

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Despoina Gavgiotaki, Stavroula Ntoa, George Margetis, Konstantinos C Apos- tolakis, and Constantine Stephanidis. 2023. Gesture-based interaction for AR systems: a short review. InProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Chen et al. PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments. 284–292

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. InAdvances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183

    work page 1988

  30. [30]

    Jaylin Herskovitz, Andi Xu, Rahaf Alharbi, and Anhong Guo. 2023. Hacking, switching, combining: understanding and supporting DIY assistive technology design by blind people. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–17

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Meta Horizon. 2026. Head — developers.meta.com. https://developers.meta. com/horizon/design/head. [Accessed 17-03-2026]

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    Jonathan Huang, Max Kinateder, Matt J Dunn, Wojciech Jarosz, Xing-Dong Yang, and Emily A Cooper. 2019. An augmented reality sign-reading assistant for users with reduced vision.PloS one14, 1 (2019), e0210630

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Alex D Hwang and Eli Peli. 2014. An augmented-reality edge enhancement application for Google Glass.Optometry and vision science91, 8 (2014), 1021– 1030

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Aulikki Hyrskykari, Howell Istance, and Stephen Vickers. 2012. Gaze gestures or dwell-based interaction?. InProceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. 229–232

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    Apple Inc. 2026. Magnify or describe things around you with Magnifier on iPhone — support.apple.com. https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/magnify- or-describe-things-around-you-iphe867dc99c/ios. [Accessed 17-03-2026]

    work page 2026

  36. [36]

    Apple Inc. 2026. Use a pointer to navigate your Apple Vision Pro. https://support.apple.com/guide/apple-vision-pro/use-a-pointer-to- navigate-tan3869c8a85/visionos. [Accessed 17-03-2026]

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    Robert JK Jacob. 1990. What you look at is what you get: eye movement-based interaction techniques. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 11–18

    work page 1990

  38. [38]

    Shahram Jalaliniya, Diako Mardanbeigi, Thomas Pederson, and Dan Witzner Hansen. 2014. Head and eye movement as pointing modalities for eyewear computers. In2014 11th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks Workshops. IEEE, 50–53

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Jaejoon Jeong, Soo-Hyung Kim, Hyung-Jeong Yang, Gun A Lee, and Seungwon Kim. 2023. GazeHand: A gaze-driven virtual hand interface.IEEE Access11 (2023), 133703–133716

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Jiaqi Jiang, Xiaolong Zhou, Sixian Chan, and Shengyong Chen. 2019. Appearance-based gaze tracking: A brief review. InInternational Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications. Springer, 629–640

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    2023.Ultralytics YOLOv8

    Glenn Jocher, Ayush Chaurasia, and Jing Qiu. 2023.Ultralytics YOLOv8. https: //github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Shaun K Kane, Chandrika Jayant, Jacob O Wobbrock, and Richard E Ladner

    work page

  43. [43]

    InProceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility

    Freedom to roam: a study of mobile device adoption and accessibility for people with visual and motor disabilities. InProceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. 115–122

    work page

  44. [44]

    Cem Kaya, Baha Mert Ersoy, and Murat Karaca. 2024. Virtual reality meets low vision: the development and analysis of MagniVR as an assistive technology. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 321–333

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Robert Kerr and Muhammad Marwan Muhammad Fuad. 2019. A real-time lazy eye correction method for low cost webcams.Procedia Computer Science159 (2019), 281–290

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Jinwook Kim, Sangmin Park, Qiushi Zhou, Mar Gonzalez-Franco, Jeongmi Lee, and Ken Pfeuffer. 2025. PinchCatcher: Enabling Multi-selection for Gaze+ Pinch. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Mikko Kytö, Barrett Ens, Thammathip Piumsomboon, Gun A Lee, and Mark Billinghurst. 2018. Pinpointing: Precise head-and eye-based target selection for augmented reality. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Pupil Labs. 2026. Neon - Overview - Eye tracking for research and beyond — pupil-labs.com. https://pupil-labs.com/products/neon. [Accessed 19-03-2026]

    work page 2026

  49. [49]

    Pupil Labs. 2026. Neon - Using Offset Correction to Improve Gaze Accuracy - Pupil Labs Docs — docs.pupil-labs.com. https://docs.pupil-labs.com/neon/data- collection/offset-correction/. [Accessed 31-03-2026]

    work page 2026

  50. [50]

    Jaewook Lee, Yang Li, Dylan Bunarto, Eujean Lee, Olivia H Wang, Adrian Rodriguez, Yuhang Zhao, Yapeng Tian, and Jon E Froehlich. 2024. Towards AI-Powered AR for Enhancing Sports Playability for People with Low Vision: An Exploration of ARSports. In2024 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 228–233

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Jaewook Lee, Andrew D Tjahjadi, Jiho Kim, Junpu Yu, Minji Park, Jiawen Zhang, Jon E Froehlich, Yapeng Tian, and Yuhang Zhao. 2024. CookAR: Affordance augmentations in wearable AR to support kitchen tool interactions for people with low vision. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–16

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Hong Lei and Ronald A Schuchard. 1997. Using two preferred retinal loci for different lighting conditions in patients with central scotomas.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science38, 9 (1997), 1812–1818

    work page 1997

  53. [53]

    Chen Li, Xia Zhang, Wei Li, and Yafei Liu. 2025. Effects of Dwell Time and Area on Task Performance of Gaze-Triggered Eye Control in AR-Aided Aircraft Cockpits.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction(2025), 1–8

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Chiuhsiang Joe Lin, Sui-Hua Ho, and Yan-Jyun Chen. 2015. An investigation of pointing postures in a 3D stereoscopic environment.Applied ergonomics48 (2015), 154–163

    work page 2015

  55. [55]

    Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár

    work page

  56. [56]

    Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context

    Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. arXiv:1405.0312 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0312

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    Qimin Liu and Lijuan Wang. 2021. t-Test and ANOVA for data with ceiling and/or floor effects.Behavior Research Methods53, 1 (2021), 264–277

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    Mathias N Lystbæk, Peter Rosenberg, Ken Pfeuffer, Jens Emil Grønbæk, and Hans Gellersen. 2022. Gaze-hand alignment: Combining eye gaze and mid-air pointing for interacting with menus in augmented reality.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, ETRA (2022), 1–18

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    Sina Masnadi, Brian Williamson, Andrés N Vargas González, and Joseph J LaViola. 2020. Vriassist: An eye-tracked virtual reality low vision assistance tool. In2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE, 808–809

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Natalie Maus, Dalton Rutledge, Sedeeq Al-Khazraji, Reynold Bailey, Cecilia Oves- dotter Alm, and Kristen Shinohara. 2020. Gaze-guided magnification for individ- uals with vision impairments. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Meta. 2026. EMG Wristbands and Technology | Meta — meta.com. https://www.meta.com/emerging-tech/emg-wearable-technology/?srsltid= AfmBOoqpQdYtnEolu9uYJfW4yEj5pSvi9ODVydniiwHdnPH4tvboUVrP. [Accessed 26-03-2026]

    work page 2026

  62. [62]

    2024.Unity Spatial Anchors Best Practices

    Meta Platforms, Inc. 2024.Unity Spatial Anchors Best Practices. https://developers.meta.com/horizon/documentation/unity/unity-spatial- anchors-best-practices/ Accessed: 2026-01-25

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Katsumi Minakata, John Paulin Hansen, I Scott MacKenzie, Per Bækgaard, and Vijay Rajanna. 2019. Pointing by gaze, head, and foot in a head-mounted display. InProceedings of the 11th ACM symposium on eye tracking research & applications. 1–9

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Pallavi Mohan, Wooi Boon Goh, Chi-Wing Fu, and Sai-Kit Yeung. 2018. Dual- Gaze: Addressing the midas touch problem in gaze mediated VR interaction. In 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 79–84

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Howard Moshtael, Tariq Aslam, Ian Underwood, and Baljean Dhillon. 2015. High tech aids low vision: a review of image processing for the visually impaired. Translational vision science & technology4, 4 (2015), 6–6

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    Jens Müller, Roman Rädle, and Harald Reiterer. 2017. Remote collaboration with mixed reality displays: How shared virtual landmarks facilitate spatial referencing. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 6481–6486

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    Aunnoy K Mutasim, Anil Ufuk Batmaz, and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. 2021. Pinch, click, or dwell: Comparing different selection techniques for eye-gaze-based pointing in virtual reality. InAcm symposium on eye tracking research and applications. 1–7

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    Katsu Nakamori, Mikiko Odawara, Toshiaki Nakajima, Taku Mizutani, and Kazuo Tsubota. 1997. Blinking is controlled primarily by ocular surface condi- tions.American journal of ophthalmology124, 1 (1997), 24–30

    work page 1997

  69. [69]

    Omar Namnakani, Yasmeen Abdrabou, Jonathan Grizou, Augusto Esteves, and Mohamed Khamis. 2023. Comparing dwell time, pursuits and gaze gestures for gaze interaction on handheld mobile devices. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–17

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    2024.Low Vision

    National Eye Institute. 2024.Low Vision. U.S. National Institutes of Health. https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/eye-conditions-and- diseases/low-vision Accessed: 2025-11-02

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    Gerhard Neuhold, Tobias Ollmann, Samuel Rota Bulo, and Peter Kontschieder

    work page

  72. [72]

    InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

    The mapillary vistas dataset for semantic understanding of street scenes. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 4990–4999

    work page

  73. [73]

    Richard Nguyen, Charles Gouin-Vallerand, and Maryam Amiri. 2023. Hand interaction designs in mixed and augmented reality head mounted display: a scoping review and classification.Frontiers in Virtual Reality4 (2023), 1171230

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    ULLA L NILSSON, CHRISTINA FRENNESSON, and SVEN ERIK G NILSSON

    work page

  75. [75]

    Optometry and Vision Science75, 12 (1998), 873–878

    Location and stability of a newly established eccentric retinal locus suitable for reading, achieved through training of patients with a dense central scotoma. Optometry and Vision Science75, 12 (1998), 873–878

    work page 1998

  76. [76]

    Ayşe Bozkurt Oflaz, Banu Turgut Öztürk, Şaban Gönül, Berker Bakbak, Şansal Gedik, and Süleyman Okudan. 2022. Short-term clinical results of preferred retinal locus training.Turk J Ophthalmol52, 1 (2022), 14–22

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    Joyojeet Pal, Anandhi Viswanathan, Priyank Chandra, Anisha Nazareth, Vaish- nav Kameswaran, Hariharan Subramonyam, Aditya Johri, Mark S Ackerman, and Sile O’Modhrain. 2017. Agency in assistive technology adoption: visual impairment and smartphone use in Bangalore. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 5929–5940

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    Yesaya Tommy Paulus and Gerard Bastiaan Remijn. 2021. Usability of various dwell times for eye-gaze-based object selection with eye tracking.Displays67 Head, Gaze, or Finger? Comparing Object Selection Techniques in Augmented Reality for People with Low Vision (2021), 101997

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Thierry Pozzo, Paul J Stapley, and Charalambos Papaxanthis. 2002. Coordina- tion between equilibrium and hand trajectories during whole body pointing movements.Experimental Brain Research144, 3 (2002), 343–350

    work page 2002

  80. [80]

    Pupil Labs. 2024. Pupil Labs Fixation Detector: Algorithm Descrip- tion. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CZnjyg4P83QSkfHi_ bjwSceWCTWvlVtbGWtuyajv5Jc/export?format=pdf Accessed: 2026-02-10

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.