TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

Auditory and Visual Feedback during

Eye Typing

Päivi MajarantaGaze-Based Interaction Group

Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

TOC

• My background (1)• Motivation (2)• Eye typing experiment (6)

– Method– Preliminary Results

1

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

My background

• Computer-assisted communication & gaze-based interaction eye typing

• Currently, a Ph.D. student in Graduate School for User-Centered Information Technology (UCIT)

BlissCat symbol communication tutor

for language impaired children

HyperLipslipreading tutor

Artificial Person GUI tools

iDictgaze-assistedtranslation aid

2

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

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• …

EagleEyes,www.cs.bc.edu/~eagleeye

EPCOS, Frietman and Kate 1978

3

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

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

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

Eye typing experiment - Method1

• 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

5

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

Eye typing experiment - Method2

• 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

6

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

Preliminary Results1

• Note: constant dwell time – 900ms for selection (400ms for focus)

• Grand mean: 6.97 wpm, • Click+Visual mean: 7.55 wpm

5,00

5,50

6,00

6,50

7,00

7,50

8,00

1 2 3 4

Block

En

try

Sp

ee

d (

wp

m)

Audio Only

Click+Visual

Speech+Visual

Visual Only

7

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

Preliminary Results2

Only successfully entered sentences included

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

1 2 3 4

Block

Err

or

Ra

te (

%)

Audio Only

Click+Visual

Speech+Visual

Visual Only

1,06

1,08

1,10

1,12

1,14

1,16

1 2 3 4

Block

Ke

ystr

oke

s P

er

Ch

ara

cte

r Audio Only

Click+Visual

Speech+Visual

Visual OnlyError rate vs. KSPCh e l x <del> l o error rate: 0% KSPC: 7 / 5 = 1.14

8

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

Preliminary Results3

• Switching of the point of gaze from keyboard to transcribed text

011223344

1 2 3 4

Block

Re

ad

Te

xt E

ven

tsAudio Only

Click+Visual

Speech+Visual

Visual Only

9

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

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

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction

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.fihttp://www.cs.uta.fi/hci/gaze

See http://www.cs.uta.fi/hci/gaze/eyetyping.php for- an updated list of eye typing systems, - links to their homepages, - extra info, etc.

11