Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

A Hands-free Spatial Selection and Interaction Technique using Gaze and Blink Input with Blink Prediction for Extended Reality

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that hands-free gaze-plus-blink selection can match the industry-standard gaze-plus-pinch in speed, workload, and user experience, and that a deep-learning filter can screen out accidental blinks using only eye-tracker…

desk verdict Solid, honestly-reported interaction study undermined by an overclaim: Gaze+Blink is not 'comparable' to Gaze+Pinch on error rate, and the fix (BlinkPlus) doesn't fix it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11540 v1 pith:GOLO6CTE submitted 2025-01-20 cs.HC cs.LG

Tim Rolff , Jenny Gabel , Lauren Zerbin , Niklas Hypki , Susanne Schmidt , Markus Lappe , Frank Steinicke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.LG
keywords interactiontechniqueseyetrackingblinkdetectionclassificationhands-freeextendedrealitydeeplearninggaze-based
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes Gaze+Blink, an interaction technique for head-mounted displays in which the user points with the eyes and confirms discrete selections by closing both eyes, while closing one eye and rotating the head drives continuous actions such as scrolling and drag-and-drop. In two user studies using a realistic spatial menu, it reports that Gaze+Blink matches the established Gaze+Pinch technique in selection speed, perceived workload, and user-experience scores, though blink-based input produced significantly more accidental selections. To reduce those accidents, the authors add Gaze+BlinkPlus, a deep-learning filter that classifies each blink as voluntary or involuntary using only eye-tracker markers, and report roughly three-quarters accuracy for detecting involuntary blinks on uncalibrated users. The paper's conclusion is that hands-free gaze-and-blink interaction is a viable alternative to gaze-and-pinch for spatial interfaces.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a five-state interaction machine: both eyes open is the default state, both eyes closed below a per-user openness threshold confirms a discrete selection, and one eye closed together with head rotation starts, updates, and ends a continuous drag or scroll. Around that state machine, the paper builds a deep-learning classifier that takes the last 25 seconds of eye-tracker data (pupil diameter, eye openness, and gaze direction for both eyes), splits the sequence at the end of a blink, and labels the blink voluntary or involuntary so the interface can ignore accidental closures.

What would settle it

Run the same menu tasks on a shipping consumer headset using its manufacturer-default pinch tuning; if the default Gaze+Pinch completes trials faster or with lower workload than the paper's tuned baseline, the claimed parity collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Gaze+Blink maps two-eye closure to discrete selection and one-eye closure plus head rotation to continuous drag and scroll, and that in two user studies (n=16 and n=17) on a VisionOS-style menu this matched Gaze+Pinch on completion time, workload, and UX while producing significantly more accidental selections. To address those accidents, the authors trained a ResNet-style classifier on 25-second histories of ten eye-tracker signals and report 76% accuracy on a held-out participant, concluding that Gaze+Blink and Gaze+BlinkPlus are viable hands-free alternatives to Gaze+Pinch.

Load-bearing premise

The headline result assumes the Gaze+Pinch baseline was tuned to its best: the study required 7 cm of hand movement and 300 ms of pinch, and a more permissive commercial implementation could make Gaze+Pinch faster and less effortful than measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Manufacturers of eye-tracking HMDs could offer a hands-free selection mode without extra hardware, using only gaze, eyelid openness, and head rotation.
  • Users who cannot pinch or who interact in constrained or public spaces would gain a selection method with completion times statistically comparable to Gaze+Pinch.
  • Because the blink filter relies on eye-tracker markers rather than eye-camera images, it points toward privacy-preserving blink classification on devices that withhold raw eye video.
  • The significantly higher accidental-selection rate under blink conditions indicates that deployment should pair blink input with an involuntary-blink filter or other error mitigation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the reported parity depends on the Gaze+Pinch baseline being tuned to require 7 cm of hand movement and 300 ms of pinch; a consumer headset with a more permissive pinch threshold could narrow or reverse the speed comparison.
  • Editorial inference: the classifier's 76% test accuracy comes from a single held-out participant, so population-level reliability remains open; per-user fine-tuning could raise accuracy but would add a calibration step the paper deliberately avoids.
  • Editorial inference: combining blink and pinch inputs in one technique, as one participant suggested, could let users shift modality by context and may broaden accessibility beyond either method alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Gaze+Blink, a hands-free spatial interaction technique for XR that uses gaze for targeting, a deliberate blink of both eyes for discrete selection, and a one-eye-close combined with head rotation for continuous actions such as scrolling and drag-and-drop. It also introduces Gaze+BlinkPlus, an extension that filters accidental selections with a deep-learning classifier trained on eye-tracker features to distinguish voluntary from involuntary blinks. The authors report two user studies comparing both techniques against Gaze+Pinch using a realistic VisionOS-inspired interface with menu, keyboard, scrolling, and drag-and-drop tasks. Study 1 finds comparable completion times, workload, and UX, but a significantly higher selection error rate for Gaze+Blink. Study 2 adds Gaze+BlinkPlus and again finds no significant completion-time differences, but the error rate remains significantly higher than Gaze+Pinch for both blink techniques, and Gaze+BlinkPlus does not significantly improve over Gaze+Blink. The classifier is evaluated on a held-out test session from a single participant, achieving 0.76 accuracy.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the work would provide a useful hands-free alternative for constrained spaces and users who cannot perform pinch gestures, and it would demonstrate a new way to classify voluntary versus involuntary blinks using only eye-tracker output. The strengths of the paper are its thorough two-study evaluation with a realistic UI, a priori power analyses, balanced Latin-square ordering, detailed statistical reporting, and a reproducible model architecture with specified features. The interaction state graph for discrete and continuous blink input is a genuine design contribution. However, the significance is currently limited by the unresolved error-rate gap, the failure of the proposed deep-learning remedy to reduce errors, and the thin evaluation of the classifier on a single test participant. The claims in the abstract and conclusions go beyond what the data support.

major comments (4)
  1. [§7 / §4.2.2 / §5.3.2] The conclusion that Gaze+Blink and Gaze+BlinkPlus are viable alternatives with 'comparable performance' is not supported by the paper's own hypothesis tests. H1a/H1b (Sections 4.1.2 and 5.2.2) define task performance as completion time and error rate. In Study 1, the selection error rate is 8.70% for Gaze+Blink versus 3.03% for Gaze+Pinch (t(15)=-5.23, p<.001), and in Study 2 the repeated-measures ANOVA is significant (F(2,32)=15.20, p<.001) with Gaze+Pinch lower than both blink conditions (p=.002 and p=.001) and no difference between the two blink techniques. The paper's own summaries in Sections 4.3 and 5.4 say the hypotheses are only partially confirmed, so the 'comparable performance' claim should be restricted to speed, workload, and UX, or justified with an explicit argument that the error-rate gap is practically negligible.
  2. [Abstract / §5.1.4 / Table 2] The claim that the model 'successfully detected 75% of the involuntary blinks on uncalibrated users' is not supported by the reported evaluation. Table 2 reports accuracy 0.76, recall 0.70, precision 0.68, and F1 0.67 on a test set that, according to Section 5.1.4, consists of a single participant's session (1,998 samples). No per-class recall is reported, so the detection rate for involuntary blinks specifically is unknown. In addition, the phrase 'uncalibrated users' is misleading because the eye-openness threshold used for blink detection was manually calibrated per participant (Sections 4.1.4 and 5.2.4). Please report per-class metrics with confidence intervals and either test on multiple held-out participants or temper the claim.
  3. [§5.3.2 / §6 RQ4] The proposed remediation, Gaze+BlinkPlus, did not reduce selection errors: the overall error rate in Study 2 is numerically higher for Gaze+BlinkPlus (11.26%) than for Gaze+Blink (8.87%), and the two blink techniques do not differ significantly. Thus RQ4, as answered in Section 6, is not supported by the data; the deep-learning filter neither lowered error rates nor removed the significant disadvantage relative to Gaze+Pinch. This should be framed as an open problem rather than as evidence for the viability of the technique.
  4. [§4.1.3] The fairness of the Gaze+Pinch baseline depends on parameters whose choice is not fully justified. The authors state 'we found the best minimum distance to be 7 cm and the minimum pinch duration to be 300 ms' without reporting the tuning procedure, pilot data, or a comparison with default consumer-device thresholds. If these thresholds are stricter than typical implementations (for example, on the Apple Vision Pro), the baseline would be slower and more effortful than in actual use, which could inflate the apparent advantage of Gaze+Blink. Please document the tuning procedure and include a sensitivity analysis or a justification that these parameters match consumer defaults.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a grammatical error: 'with a deep learning algorithms' should be 'with a deep learning algorithm.'
  2. [Figure 2 / §3] The state graph labels such as 'both eyes open/closed one eye open' are ambiguous; please clarify the state transitions or annotate the figure more explicitly.
  3. [Table 4] The block names in Table 4 repeat as 'block_c1/c2/c3' for both the 64-to-32 and the 32-to-32 modules; renaming the second set (for example, block_d1/d2/d3) would avoid confusion.
  4. [§4.2.2 / §5.3.2] There are inconsistent spacing and decimal formatting issues, such as 'Gaze+Blink(M=8.70' and 'p = .0012'; please standardize p-value formatting and spacing.
  5. [Throughout] The paper uses both 'cf.' and 'c.f.' inconsistently; please choose one style and apply it consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the comparative evaluation and the blink classifier are self-contained empirical results.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on two user studies and a supervised deep-learning evaluation, not on a self-citation chain or on a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Gaze+Blink is compared against Gaze+Pinch as an external baseline (Sections 4.1.1 and 5.2.2), and the error-rate and completion-time statistics are reported from the collected data rather than derived from the technique's definition. The voluntary/involuntary blink classifier (Section 5.2.1) is trained on a labeled data-collection study with button-press ground truth (Section 5.1.2) and evaluated on a held-out participant session (Section 5.1.4), so its reported 0.76 accuracy is an independent empirical result. Self-citations to Rolff et al. [60,61] are used only for architecture inspiration ('we do not need this information... Similar to Rolff et al. [60], we utilize historic information'), and the Kirchner/Lappe citations [33,34] motivate a design choice rather than establish the outcome. The conclusion that Gaze+Blink is a 'viable alternative' despite significantly higher error rates is an interpretive inconsistency with the paper's own H1a/H1b definitions, but that is a correctness or framing concern, not circularity: the error-rate disadvantage is reported, not defined into existence.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The techniques depend on several hand-tuned thresholds and assumptions about blink physiology and eye-tracker signal quality. The ML classifier adds further assumptions about labeling ground truth. No new physical entities, particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Eye openness threshold for blink detection = 0.7 global, then manually calibrated per user
    Section 4.1.3: the raycast position is held when openness falls below 0.7, and each participant's left and right eye thresholds were manually calibrated. This threshold determines what counts as a blink and thus drives selection.
  • Pinch gesture parameters for Gaze+Pinch baseline = minimum 7 cm movement, minimum 300 ms pinch duration
    Section 4.1.3: the authors state they 'found the best minimum distance to be 7cm'. These hand-tuned values define the Gaze+Pinch baseline and therefore shape the fairness of the comparison.
  • Blink history length for classifier = 5000 samples (25 seconds at 200 Hz)
    Section 5.2.1: chosen from the assumption that at least two involuntary blinks occur in 25 seconds. This window is the model input and affects classification accuracy.
  • Voluntary blink label margin = 200 ms
    Section 5.1.2: a blink is labeled intentional if the participant pressed a button within 200 ms. This margin defines the ground truth for all 9,221 intentional blinks used in training.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Blink duration is approximately 120 +/- 2 ms and involuntary blinks occur around 17 times per minute in VR.
    Section 3.1 uses the 120 ms blink duration to claim fast input, and Section 5.2.1 uses the blink rate to justify the 25 second history window. Both statistics are cited from prior work, not measured in this study.
  • domain assumption The eye-tracker openness signal reliably distinguishes one-eye closure, two-eye closure, and open eyes.
    The entire state machine in Figure 2 depends on this distinction, and per-user threshold calibration is needed. Section 6 acknowledges that some users cannot wink and that the Heisenberg effect can shift gaze during closure, but tracker signal reliability itself is not validated.
  • ad hoc to paper A button press within 200 ms of a blink reliably labels that blink as voluntary.
    Section 5.1.2 uses this rule to create ground truth labels for 9,221 intentional blinks. The rule is not validated, and natural blinks near a button press could be mislabeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hands-free Spatial Selection and Interaction Technique using Gaze and Blink Input with Blink Prediction for Extended Reality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOLO6CTE

@misc{pith2026250111540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hands-free Spatial Selection and Interaction Technique using Gaze and Blink Input with Blink Prediction for Extended Reality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOLO6CTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11540}
}
read the original abstract

Gaze-based interaction techniques have created significant interest in the field of spatial interaction. Many of these methods require additional input modalities, such as hand gestures (e.g., gaze coupled with pinch). Those can be uncomfortable and difficult to perform in public or limited spaces, and pose challenges for users who are unable to execute pinch gestures. To address these aspects, we propose a novel, hands-free Gaze+Blink interaction technique that leverages the user's gaze and intentional eye blinks. This technique enables users to perform selections by executing intentional blinks. It facilitates continuous interactions, such as scrolling or drag-and-drop, through eye blinks coupled with head movements. So far, this concept has not been explored for hands-free spatial interaction techniques. We evaluated the performance and user experience (UX) of our Gaze+Blink method with two user studies and compared it with Gaze+Pinch in a realistic user interface setup featuring common menu interaction tasks. Study 1 demonstrated that while Gaze+Blink achieved comparable selection speeds, it was prone to accidental selections resulting from unintentional blinks. In Study 2 we explored an enhanced technique employing a deep learning algorithms for filtering out unintentional blinks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11540 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gaze+Blink interaction technique: (a) user wearing the Varjo XR-4 HMD, (b) exemplary eye tracking of a blink and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (1) Default state, both eyes open ⇒ target indication (2) Selection state: i start: both eyes closed ⇒ target selection ii end: both eyes opened ⇒ return to default state The blinking is detected with a specified eye openness thresh￾old value. As a blink can be performed nearly instantly by the user (120 ± 2ms) [14], this allows for a fast update of the blink selection confirmation state. In contrast, Gaze & Dwell h… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. State graph for our discrete (blue rectangles) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the Gaze+Pinch and Gaze+Blink interaction techniques for discrete and continuous input. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gaze+Blink Scroll Sequence In summary, Gaze+Blink provides analogous discrete and con￾tinuous interactions to Gaze+Pinch. To our knowledge, so far, no techniques for implementing continuous interactions have been proposed for hands-free interactions in XR. Existing han…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sequence of interactions to solve the task that was set to the participants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sample views of different menus and apps used during our study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overall Trial Measurements, study 1. 2262 2369 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Gaze+Pinch Gaze+Blink Scroll Distance (px) 4.62 2.61 * 0 5 10 Gaze+Pinch Gaze+Blink Scroll Interaction Count 2.78 9.09 *** -5 0 5 10 15 20 Gaze+Pinch Gaze+Blink Selection Error Rate (%) [PITH_FULL…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Settings Menu Task Measurements, study 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mean SSQ Subscale Scores, study 1. 4.2.4 NASA RAW TLX:. We did not find any significant differences between the two interaction techniques for all subscales and the normalized total workload of the NASA-TLX questionnaire. The mean and SD for each scale are listed for …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Deep-learning architecture used to predict volun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Overall Trial Measurements, study 2. 2350 2597 2623 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Gaze+Pinch Gaze+Blink Gaze+BlinkPlus Scroll Distance (px) 4.34 2.34 2.51 ** ** 0 5 10 Gaze+Pinch Gaze+Blink Gaze+BlinkPlus Scroll Interaction Count 3.31 9.19 12.62 *** *** −10 0 10 20 30 40 Gaze…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Settings Menu Task Measurements, study 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Mean SSQ Subscale Scores, study 2. 5.3.5 User Experience Questionnaire: Same as in Sec. 4.2.6, we used the UEQ-S and analyzed the results with the UEQ-S anal￾ysis tool. The Pragmatic Quality is rated bad for all three conditions, Gaze+Pinch (M=0.30, SD=0.994), Gaze+Bl…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: UEQ-S benchmark graphs REFERENCES [1] Kiyohiko Abe, Hironobu Sato, Shogo Matsuno, Shoichi Ohi, and Minoru Ohyama. 2013. Automatic classification of eye blink types using a frame￾splitting method. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Un￾derstanding Human…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kiyohiko Abe, Hironobu Sato, Shogo Matsuno, Shoichi Ohi, and Minoru Ohyama. 2013. Automatic classification of eye blink types using a frame- splitting method. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Un- derstanding Human Cognition. 10th International Conf. (EPCE) . Springer, 117– 124

    2013

  2. [2]

    Mohit Agarwal and Raghupathy Sivakumar. 2019. Blink: A fully automated unsupervised algorithm for eye-blink detection in eeg signals. In 57th Annual Allerton Conf. on Communication, Control, and Computing . IEEE, 1113–1121

    2019

  3. [3]

    Ioannis Agtzidis, Mikhail Startsev, and Michael Dorr. 2016. Smooth Pursuit Detection Based on Multiple Observers. In Proc. of the 9th Biennial ACM Symp. on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (ETRA) . Association for Computing Machinery, 303–306. doi: 10.1145/2857491.2857521

    work page arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Richard Andersson, Linnea Larsson, Kenneth Holmqvist, Martin Stridh, and Marcus Nyström. 2017. One algorithm to rule them all? An evaluation and discussion of ten eye movement event-detection algorithms. Behavior research methods, 49, 2, 616–637

    2017

  5. [5]

    Attiah and Enas F

    Afraa Z. Attiah and Enas F. Khairullah. 2021. Eye-Blink Detection System for Virtual Keyboard. In 2021 National Computing Colleges Conference (NCCC) . IEEE, 1–6. doi: 10.1109/NCCC49330.2021.9428797

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Samantha Aziz, Dillon J Lohr, Lee Friedman, and Oleg Komogortsev. 2024. Evaluation of Eye Tracking Signal Quality for Virtual Reality Applications: A Case Study in the Meta Quest Pro. In Proc. of the 2024 Symp. on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA ’24) Article 7. Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1145/3649902.3653347

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Anna Rita Bentivoglio, Susan B Bressman, Emanuele Cassetta, Donatella Car- retta, Pietro Tonali, and Alberto Albanese. 1997. Analysis of blink rate patterns in normal subjects. Movement disorders, 12, 6, 1028–1034

    1997

  8. [8]

    Joanna Bergström, Tor-Salve Dalsgaard, Jason Alexander, and Kasper Hornbæk

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    William H Bidder II and Alan Tomlinson. 1997. A comparison of saccadic and blink suppression in normal observers. Vision research, 37, 22, 3171–3179

    1997

  2. [10]

    John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evalua- tion in industry, 189, 194, 4–7

    1996

  3. [11]

    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. In Proc. of the 29th ACM Symp. on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST ...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Mark Colley, Beate Wanner, Max Rädler, Marcel Rötzer, Julian Frommel, Teresa Hirzle, Pascal Jansen, and Enrico Rukzio. 2024. Effects of a Gaze-Based 2D Platform Game on User Enjoyment, Perceived Competence, and Digital Eye Strain. In Proc. of the CHI Conf. on Human Factors in ...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Asim H Dar, Adina S Wagner, and Michael Hanke. 2021. REMoDNaV: ro- bust eye-movement classification for dynamic stimulation. Behavior research methods, 53, 1, 399–414

    2021

  6. [14]

    Andrew T Duchowski. 2017. Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice . Springer

    2017

  7. [15]

    Klaus Ehrmann, Arthur Ho, and Eric Papas. 2005. A novel method for assessing variations in visual acuity after the blink. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye , 28, 4, 157–162

    2005

  8. [16]

    Ribel Fares, Shaomin Fang, and Oleg Komogortsev. 2013. Can we beat the mouse with MAGIC? In (CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, 1387–1390. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2466183

    2013

  9. [17]

    Jenny Gabel, Susanne Schmidt, Oscar Ariza, and Frank Steinicke. 2023. Redi- recting Rays: Evaluation of Assistive Raycasting Techniques in Virtual Reality. In Proc. of the 29th ACM Symp. on Virtual Reality Software and Technology

    2023

  10. [18]

    Michele Lo Giudice, Giuseppe Varone, Cosimo Ieracitano, Nadia Mammone, Arcangelo Ranieri Bruna, Valeria Tomaselli, and Francesco Carlo Morabito

  11. [19]

    Jesse W Grootjen, Henrike Weingärtner, and Sven Mayer. 2024. Uncovering and addressing blink-related challenges in using eye tracking for interactive systems. In Proc. of the CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1–23

    2024

  12. [20]

    John Paulin Hansen, Anders Sewerin Johansen, Dan Witzner Hansen, Kenji Ito, and Satoru Mashino. 2003. Command Without a Click: Dwell Time Typing by Mouse and Gaze Selections. In Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT ’03: IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Inter...

    2003

  13. [21]

    Scott MacKenzie, and Per Bækgaard

    John Paulin Hansen, Vijay Rajanna, I. Scott MacKenzie, and Per Bækgaard

  14. [22]

    Sandra G Hart. 2006. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proc. of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting number 9. Vol. 50. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 904–908

    2006

  15. [23]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proc. of the IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 770–778

    2016

  16. [24]

    2011.Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures

    Kenneth Holmqvist, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka, and Joost Van de Weijer. 2011.Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures . OUP Oxford

    2011

  17. [25]

    Paul Hömke, Judith Holler, and Stephen C Levinson. 2018. Eye blinks are perceived as communicative signals in human face-to-face interaction. PloS one, 13, 12

    2018

  18. [26]

    Sergey Ioffe. 2015. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aditya Jain, Ramta Bansal, Avnish Kumar, and KD Singh. 2015. A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students. International journal of applied and basic medical research , 5, 2, 124–127

    2015

  20. [28]

    Ricardo Jota and Daniel Wigdor. 2015. Palpebrae superioris: exploring the design space of eyelid gestures. InProc. of the 41st Graphics Interface Conference, 273–280

    2015

  21. [29]

    Robert S Kennedy, Norman E Lane, Kevin S Berbaum, and Michael G Lilienthal

  22. [30]

    Jungho Kim, Leehwan Hwang, Soonchul Kwon, and Seunghyun Lee. 2022. Change in blink rate in the metaverse VR HMD and AR glasses environment. Int. journal of environmental research and public health , 19, 14

    2022

  23. [31]

    Jungho Kim, Yadav Sunil Kumar, Jisang Yoo, and Soonchul Kwon. 2018. Change of blink rate in viewing virtual reality with hmd. Symmetry, 10, 9, 400

    2018

  24. [32]

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. 18 A Hands-free Spatial Selection and Interaction Technique using Gaze and Blink Input with Blink Prediction for Extended Reality

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Johannes Kirchner, Tamara Watson, Jochen Bauer, and Markus Lappe. 2023. Eyeball translations affect saccadic eye movements beyond brainstem control. Journal of Neurophysiology, 130, 5, 1334–1343. doi: 10.1152/jn.00021.2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Johannes Kirchner, Tamara Watson, and Markus Lappe. 2022. Real-time mri reveals unique insight into the full kinematics of eye movements. Eneuro, 9, 1

    2022

  27. [35]

    Oleg V Komogortsev and Alex Karpov. 2013. Automated classification and scoring of smooth pursuit eye movements in the presence of fixations and saccades. Behavior research methods, 45, 1, 203–215

    2013

  28. [36]

    Daniel M Laby and David G Kirschen. 2011. Thoughts on ocular dominance—Is it actually a preference? Eye & contact lens , 37, 3, 140–144

    2011

  29. [37]

    Chou-Ching K Lin, Kuo-Jung Lee, Chih-Hsu Huang, and Yung-Nien Sun. 2019. Cerebral control of winking before and after learning: An event-related fMRI study. Brain and Behavior, 9, 12

    2019

  30. [38]

    Xueshi Lu, Difeng Yu, Hai-Ning Liang, Wenge Xu, Yuzheng Chen, Xiang Li, and Khalad Hasan. 2020. Exploration of Hands-free Text Entry Techniques For Virtual Reality. In 2020 IEEE Int. Symp. on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 344–349. doi: 10.1109/ISMAR50242.2020.00061

    2020

  31. [39]

    Lystbæk, Thorbjørn Mikkelsen, Roland Krisztandl, Eric J Gonzalez, Mar Gonzalez-Franco, Hans Gellersen, and Ken Pfeuffer

    Mathias N. Lystbæk, Thorbjørn Mikkelsen, Roland Krisztandl, Eric J Gonzalez, Mar Gonzalez-Franco, Hans Gellersen, and Ken Pfeuffer. 2024. Hands-on, hands- off: gaze-assisted bimanual 3d interaction. In (UIST ’24) Article 80. Association for Computing Machinery, Pittsburgh, PA,...

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Lystbæk, Peter Rosenberg, Ken Pfeuffer, Jens Emil Grønbæk, and Hans Gellersen

    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. Proc. ACM Hum.- Comput. Interact., 6, ETRA, Article 145, (May 2022), 18...

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Karen A Manning, Lorrin A Riggs, and Julieane K Komenda. 1983. Reflex eyeblinks and visual suppression. Perception & psychophysics, 34, 3, 250–256

    1983

  34. [42]

    Meta Developers. 2024. User interface components. Website. Accessed: 07.08.2024. (2024). https://developers.meta.com/horizon/resources/hands-design-ui/

    2024

  35. [43]

    Microsoft Learn. 2024. App quality criteria overview. Website. Accessed: 07.08.2024. (2024). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/develop/a dvanced-concepts/app-quality-criteria-overview

    2024

  36. [44]

    Microsoft Learn, Eye-based interactions. 2023. Gaze and commit. Website. Accessed: 10.08.2023. (2023). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixe d-reality/design/gaze-and-commit

    2023

  37. [45]

    Diganta Misra. 2019. Mish: a self regularized non-monotonic activation func- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08681

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Eric Missimer and Margrit Betke. 2010. Blink and wink detection for mouse pointer control. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA ’10). Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1145/1839294.1839322

    2010

  39. [47]

    Pedro Monteiro, Guilherme Gonçalves, Hugo Coelho, Miguel Melo, and Max- imino Bessa. 2021. Hands-free interaction in immersive virtual reality: a sys- tematic review. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 27, 5, 2702–2713

    2021

  40. [48]

    Mott, Shane Williams, Jacob O

    Martez E. Mott, Shane Williams, Jacob O. Wobbrock, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2017. Improving dwell-based gaze typing with dynamic, cascading dwell times. In Proc. of the 2017 CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, 2558...

    2017

  41. [49]

    Mutasim, Anil Ufuk Batmaz, and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger

    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. In ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA ’21). Association for Comput...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Tommaso Nicoletti, Davide Quaranta, Giacomo Della Marca, Giorgio Tasca, and Guido Gainotti. 2021. Eyelid closing and opening disorders in patients with unilateral brain lesions: A case report with video neuroimage and a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Clinical ...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Tomi Nukarinen, Jari Kangas, Oleg Špakov, Poika Isokoski, Deepak Akkil, Jussi Rantala, and Roope Raisamo. 2016. Evaluation of headturn: an interaction tech- nique using the gaze and head turns. InProceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI ...

    2016

  44. [52]

    Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Diederick C Niehorster, Roy S Hessels, and Ignace TC Hooge. 2024. What is a blink? classifying and characterizing blinks in eye openness signals. Behavior Research Methods, 1–20

    2024

  45. [53]

    DA Pérez-Martinez, AI Puente-Muñoz, J Doménech, JJ Baztán, A Berbel-Garcia, and J Porta-Etessam. 2007. Unilateral apraxia of eyelid closure in ischemic stroke: Role of the right hemisphere in the emotional gesture communication. Revista de Neurologia, 44, 7, 411–414

    2007

  46. [54]

    Ken Pfeuffer, Hans Gellersen, and Mar Gonzalez-Franco. 2024. Design principles and challenges for gaze + pinch interaction in xr. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 44, 3, 74–81. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2024.3382961

    2024

  47. [55]

    Ken Pfeuffer, Benedikt Mayer, Diako Mardanbegi, and Hans Gellersen. 2017. Gaze + Pinch Interaction in Virtual Reality. In Proc. of the 5th Symp. on Spatial User Interaction (SUI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, 99–108. doi: 10.1145/3131277.3132180

    2017

  48. [56]

    Alexander Plopski, Teresa Hirzle, Nahal Norouzi, Long Qian, Gerd Bruder, and Tobias Langlotz. 2022. The eye in extended reality: a survey on gaze interaction and eye tracking in head-worn extended reality. 55, 3, Article 53, (Mar. 2022), 39 pages. doi: 10.1145/3491207

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Chris Porter and Gary Zammit. 2023. Blink, Pull, Nudge or Tap? The Impact of Secondary Input Modalities on Eye-Typing Performance. In HCI Int. 2023 – Late Breaking Papers. Springer Nature Switzerland, 238–258

    2023

  50. [58]

    Argenis Ramirez Ramirez Gomez, Christopher Clarke, Ludwig Sidenmark, and Hans Gellersen. 2021. Gaze+Hold: Eyes-only direct manipulation with contin- uous gaze modulated by closure of one eye. In ACM Symp. on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA ’21). Association for Co...

    2021

  51. [59]

    Mikkel Rosholm Rebsdorf, Theo Khumsan, Jonas Valvik, Niels Christian Nils- son, and Ali Adjorlu. 2023. Blink Don’t Wink: Exploring Blinks as Input for VR Games. In Proc. of the 2023 ACM Symp. on Spatial User Interaction (SUI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1...

    2023

  52. [60]

    Tim Rolff, Susanne Schmidt, Frank Steinicke, and Simone Frintrop. 2023. A Deep Learning Architecture for Egocentric Time-to-Saccade Prediction using Weibull Mixture-Models and Historic Priors. In Proc. of the 2023 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications

    2023

  53. [61]

    Tim Rolff, Frank Steinicke, and Simone Frintrop. 2022. When do saccades begin? prediction of saccades as a time-to-event problem. In 2022 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications , 1–7

    2022

  54. [62]

    Salvucci and Joseph H

    Dario D. Salvucci and Joseph H. Goldberg. 2000. Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In Proc. of the 2000 Symp. on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (ETRA ’00). Association for Computing Machinery, 71–78. doi: 10.1145/355017.355028

    2000

  55. [63]

    Hironobu Sato, Kiyohiko Abe, Shoichi Ohi, and Minoru Ohyama. 2017. An automatic classification method for involuntary and two types of voluntary blinks. Electronics and Communications in Japan , 100, 10, 48–58

    2017

  56. [64]

    Hironobu Sato, Kiyohiko Abe, Shoichi Ohi, and Minoru Ohyama. 2015. Auto- matic classification between involuntary and two types of voluntary blinks based on an image analysis. In Human-Computer Interaction: Interaction Tech- nologies: 17th Int. Conf., HCI Int. 2015 . Springer, 140–149

    2015

  57. [65]

    Martin Schrepp. 2015. User experience questionnaire handbook. All you need to know to apply the UEQ successfully in your project , 50–52

    2015

  58. [66]

    Robin Schweigert, Valentin Schwind, and Sven Mayer. 2019. Eyepointing: a gaze-based selection technique. In Proceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2019 (MuC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, Hamburg, Germany, 719–

    2019

  59. [67]

    Ludwig Sidenmark, Christopher Clarke, Xuesong Zhang, Jenny Phu, and Hans Gellersen. 2020. Outline Pursuits: Gaze-assisted Selection of Occluded Objects in Virtual Reality. In Proc. of the 2020 CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing...

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    Ludwig Sidenmark and Hans Gellersen. 2019. Eye&Head: Synergetic Eye and Head Movement for Gaze Pointing and Selection. In Proc. of the 32nd Annual ACM Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, 1161–1174. doi: 10.1145/33321...

    2019

  61. [69]

    Mikhail Startsev, Ioannis Agtzidis, and Michael Dorr. 2019. 1D CNN with BLSTM for automated classification of fixations, saccades, and smooth pursuits. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 2, 556–572

    2019

  62. [70]

    SB Stevenson, FC Volkmann, JP Kelly, and Lorrin A Riggs. 1986. Dependence of visual suppression on the amplitudes of saccades and blinks. Vision research, 26, 11, 1815–1824

    1986

  63. [71]

    Suma, Seth Clark, David Krum, Samantha Finkelstein, Mark Bolas, and Zachary Warte

    Evan A. Suma, Seth Clark, David Krum, Samantha Finkelstein, Mark Bolas, and Zachary Warte. 2011. Leveraging change blindness for redirection in virtual environments. In 2011 IEEE Virtual Reality Conf. 159–166. doi: 10.1109/VR.201 1.5759455

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    Eduardo Velloso and Marcus Carter. 2016. The Emergence of EyePlay: A Survey of Eye Interaction in Games. In Proc. of the 2016 Annual Symp. on Computer- Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’16). Association for Computing Machin- ery, 171–185. doi: 10.1145/2967934.2968084

    2016

  65. [73]

    Frances C Volkmann. 1986. Human visual suppression. Vision research, 26, 9, 1401–1416

    1986

  66. [74]

    Lystbæk, Pavel Manakhov, Jens Emil Sloth Grønbæk, Ken Pfeuffer, and Hans Gellersen

    Uta Wagner, Mathias N. Lystbæk, Pavel Manakhov, Jens Emil Sloth Grønbæk, Ken Pfeuffer, and Hans Gellersen. 2023. A Fitts’ Law Study of Gaze-Hand Alignment for Selection in 3D User Interfaces. In Proc. of the 2023 CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Assoc...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Dennis Wolf, Jan Gugenheimer, Marco Combosch, and Enrico Rukzio. 2020. Understanding the Heisenberg Effect of Spatial Interaction: A Selection Induced Error for Spatially Tracked Input Devices. In Proc. of the 2020 CHI Conf. on 19 Rolff&Gabel et al. Human Factors in Computing ...

    2020

  68. [76]

    Jing Xiao, Jun Qu, and Yuanqing Li. 2019. An Electrooculogram-Based In- teraction Method and Its Music-on-Demand Application in a Virtual Reality Environment. IEEE Access, 7, 22059–22070. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2898324

    2019

  69. [77]

    Raimondas Zemblys, Diederick C Niehorster, and Kenneth Holmqvist. 2019. gazeNet: End-to-end eye-movement event detection with deep neural networks. Behavior research methods, 51, 2, 840–864

    2019

  70. [78]

    André Zenner, Kora Persephone Regitz, and Antonio Krüger. 2021. Blink- suppressed hand redirection. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 75–84. doi: 10.1109/VR50410.2021.00028

    2021

  71. [79]

    André Zenner, Kristin Ullmann, Oscar Ariza, Frank Steinicke, and Antonio Krüger. 2023. Induce a blink of the eye: Evaluating techniques for triggering eye blinks in virtual reality. In Proc. of the 2023 CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12

    2023

  72. [80]

    Shumin Zhai, Carlos Morimoto, and Steven Ihde. 1999. Manual and gaze input cascaded (MAGIC) pointing. In Proc. of the SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’99). Association for Computing Machinery, 246–253. doi: 10.1145/302979.303053. 20

    1999

  73. [723]

    doi: 10.1145/3340764.3344897

    isbn: 9781450371988. doi: 10.1145/3340764.3344897

  74. [1993]

    Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The int. journal of aviation psychology , 3, 3, 203–220

  75. [2018]

    In (COGAIN ’18)

    A Fitts’ law study of click and dwell interaction by gaze, head and mouse with a head-mounted display. In (COGAIN ’18). Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1145/3206343.3206344

  76. [2020]

    In 2020 Int

    1D Convolutional Neural Network approach to classify voluntary eye blinks in EEG signals for BCI applications. In 2020 Int. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE

    2020

  77. [2021]

    In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21) Article 533

    How to evaluate object selection and manipulation in vr? guidelines from 20 years of studies. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21) Article 533. Association for Computing Machinery, Yokohama, Japan, 20 pages. isbn: 9781450380...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.