Effects of Target Shape and Display Location on Pointing Performance by Eye-Gaze Input System

Modeling of Pointing Time by Extended Fitts’ Law
  • Atsuo MurataEmail author
  • Makoto Moriwaka
  • Daichi Fukunaga
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9170)


This study aimed at investigating the effects of the target shape, the movement distance, the target size, and the direction of target presentation on the pointing performance using an eye-gaze input system. The target shape, the target size, the movement distance, and the direction of target presentation were within-subject experimental variables. The target shape included: diamond, circle, rectangle, and square. The direction of target presentation included eight directions: upper, lower, left, right, upper left, upper right, lower left, and lower right. As a result, the pointing time of the rectangle tended to be longer. The upper directional movement also tended to prolong the pointing time. Such results would be effective for designing an eye-gaze-input HCI (Human-Computer Interaction). Moreover, as a result of modeling the pointing time by Fitts’ modeling, it was suggested that the index of difficulty in Fitts’ modeling for the rectangle should be defined separately from the circle, the diamond, and the square.


Eye-gaze input Target shape Display location HCI 


  1. 1.
    Jacob, R.J.K.: What you look at is what you get: Eye movement- based interaction technique. In: Proceedings of the ACM CHI 1990 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference, pp. 11–18. ACM, Seattle (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacob, R.J.K.: The use of eye movements in human-computer interaction techniques: What you look at is what you get. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 9, 152–169 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacob, R.J.K.: Eye-movement-based human-computer interaction techniques: Towards non-command interfaces. In: Harston, H.R., Hix, D. (eds.) Advances in human-computer interaction, vol. 4, pp.151–190. Ablex, Norwood (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacob, R.J.K.: What you look at is what you get: Using eye movements as computer input. In: Proceedings CHI 1990, pp.11–18. ACM, Seattle (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacob, R.J.K.: Eye tracking in advanced interface design. In: Baefield, W., Furness, T. (eds.) Advanced Interface Design and Virtual Environments, pp. 212–231. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacob, R.J.K., Sibert, L.E., Mcfarlanes, D.C., Mullen, M.P.: Integrality and reparability of input devices. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 1(1), 3–26 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sibert, L.E., Jacob, R.J.K.: Evaluation of eye gaze interaction. In: Proceedings CHI 2000, pp. 281–288, Hague (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murata, A.: Eye-gaze input versus mouse: cursor control as a function of age. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 21, 1–14 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murata, A., Moriwaka, M., Effectiveness of the menu selection method for eye-gaze input system -Comparison between young and older adults. In: 5th International Workshop on Computational Intelligence and Applications, pp.306–311, Hiroshima (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murata, A., Miyake, T.: Effectiveness of eye-gaze input system -Identification of conditions that assures high pointing accuracy and movement directional effect. In: 4th International Workshop on Computational Intelligence & Applications, pp. 127–132, Hiroshima (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murata, A., Moriwaka, M.: Basic study for development of web browser suitable for eye-gaze input system -Identification of optimal click method. In: 5th International Workshop on Computational Intelligence & Applications, pp. 302–305, Hiroshima (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murata, A., Hayashi, K., Moriwaka, M., Hayami, T.: Optimal scroll method to browse web pages using an eye-gaze input system. In: AHFE 2012, pp. 7106–7115, San Francisco (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murata, A., Uetsugi, R., Hayami, T.: Study on cursor shape suitable for eye-gaze input system. In: SICE 2012, pp. 926–931, Akita (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murata, A., Hayashi, K., Moriwaka, M., Hayami, T.: Study on Character Input Methods Using Eye-gaze Input Interface. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCII/HCI 2013, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 8007, pp. 320–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pastel, R.: Positioning graphical objects on computer screens: A three-phase model. Hum. Factors 53(1), 22–37 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lecuier, A.: A study of the modification of the speed and size of the cursor for simulating pseudo-haptic bumps and holes. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 5(3), 1–21 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Phillips, G.: Conflicting directional and locational cues afforded by arrowhead cursors in graphical user interfaces. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 9(2), 75–87 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murata, A.: Empirical Evaluation of Performance Models of Pointing Accuracy and Speed with a PC Mouse. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 8(4), 457–469 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atsuo Murata
    • 1
    Email author
  • Makoto Moriwaka
    • 1
  • Daichi Fukunaga
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Intelligent Mechanical System, Graduate School of Natural Science and TechnologyOkayama UniversityOkayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations