1 / 12

Auditory and Visual Feedback during Eye Typing

Auditory and Visual Feedback during Eye Typing. Päivi Majaranta Gaze-Based Interaction Group Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction. TOC. My background (1) Motivation (2) Eye typing experiment (6) Method Preliminary Results. 1. My background. HyperLips lipreading tutor.

stefano-carton
Download Presentation

Auditory and Visual Feedback during Eye Typing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Auditory and Visual Feedback duringEye Typing Päivi Majaranta Gaze-Based Interaction Group Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

  2. TOC • My background (1) • Motivation (2) • Eye typing experiment (6) • Method • Preliminary Results 1

  3. My background HyperLips lipreading tutor Artificial Person GUI tools iDict gaze-assisted translation aid BlissCat symbol communication tutor for language impaired children • Computer-assisted communication & gaze-based interaction  eye typing  • Currently, a Ph.D. studentin Graduate School for User-Centered Information Technology (UCIT) 2

  4. Motivation1 • BlinkWriter, Murphy et al., 1993, • EagleEyes, Gips et al., 1993, Boston College, MA • EPCOS & EYE-SISTANT, Frietman et al., 1984, TU-Delft, Holland • ERICA, Hutchinson et al., 1987, Univ. Virginia • EYECOM, Rosen and Durfee, 1987 • EYE-gaze, Tokorozawa, Japan • Eye-Switch Controlled Communication Aids, Kate et al., 1979, TU-Delft, Holland • EyeScan, Eulenberg et al., 1985 • EyeTyper, Friedman et al., 1981 • EyeWriter, Wiesspeiner et al., 1999, Graz, Austria • LC EyeGaze, Chapman et al., 1991, LC Technologies, Virginia • Quick Glance, Rasmusson et al., 1999 • SiVHa, Blanco et al., 1998, Univ. Navarra, Spain • GazeTalk, Hansen et al., 2001, IT-University Copenhagen, Denmark • Viserg Eye Mouse, Istance et al., 1993, Univ. Leicester, UK • VisionKey, Kahn et al., 1995, Ottawa Ontario, Canada • VISIOBOARD, EU/Telematics project, 2000 • … EPCOS, Frietman and Kate 1978 EagleEyes, www.cs.bc.edu/~eagleeye 3

  5. Motivation2 • 20 years of eye typing, mostly “system papers”but typing issues not been studied in detail • e.g. methods for text editing, selection, scrolling, feedback… Päivi Majaranta & Kari-Jouko Räihä, Twenty Years of Eye Typing: Systems and Design Issues, in Proceedings of ETRA2002 • Eye typing provides a rich set of issues for study • from practical point of view: to develop more usable systems • from research point of view: to understand gaze communication task • My Aim is to study the eye typing process in detail and to find ways to make the interaction more efficient and enjoyable 4

  6. SMI iView X RED remote 50 Hz, 0.5-1.0 deg. 13 participants 8 males 5 females Log files + video tape raw, fixation &event data Eye typing experiment - Method1 5

  7. 4 feedback modes Visual only Click + visual Speech + visual Audio only 4 blocks of trials 5 sentences tot. of 1040 phrases entered by the participants Practice Interview & questionnaire Eye typing experiment - Method2 6

  8. Preliminary Results1 • Note: constant dwell time • 900ms for selection (400ms for focus) • Grand mean: 6.97 wpm, • Click+Visual mean: 7.55 wpm 7

  9. Preliminary Results2 Only successfully entered sentences included Error rate vs. KSPC h e l x <del> l o  error rate: 0%  KSPC: 7 / 5 = 1.14 8

  10. Preliminary Results3 • Switching of the point of gaze from keyboard to transcribed text 9

  11. Preliminary Results - Still To Do4 • Types of errors? • E.g. the user did not understand ”focus” ><”selection” • What happened before recalibration? • Initial reaction to the FB, learning • Interview + Questionnaire • e.g. ”Spoken feedback helps, but also irritates” • A lot of interesting minor details to study • e.g. key specific differences (shorter dwell for space?) • Continuation study needed(?) because • Visual & auditory FB not comparable in the current experiment • Visual FB continuous from focus to selection (auditory not) • Audio only FB does not have any hint for focus • Auditory FB only given for selection • Spoken FB time varies (some letters take more time) 10

  12. Thank you for your attention! Thanks to Kari-Jouko Räihä, Scott MacKenzie and Anne Aula for comments, help with the statistics and encouragement curly@cs.uta.fi http://www.cs.uta.fi/hci/gaze Seehttp://www.cs.uta.fi/hci/gaze/eyetyping.php for - an updated list of eye typing systems, - links to their homepages, - extra info, etc. 11

More Related