Cited by 128Usability and User Interface DesignInteractive and Immersive DisplaysTactile and Sensory Interactions

Effects of Language Modeling and its Personalization on Touchscreen Typing Performance

Open access
Fowler, Andrew, Partridge, Kurt, Chelba, Ciprian, Bi, Xiaojun, Ouyang, Tom, Zhai, Shumin·2015·Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Modern smartphones correct typing errors and learn user-specific words (such as proper names). Both techniques are useful, yet little has been published about their technical specifics and concrete benefits. One reason is that typing accuracy is difficult to measure empirically on a large scale. We describe a closed-loop, smart touch keyboard (STK) evaluation system that we have implemented to solve this problem. It includes a principled typing simulator for generating human-like noisy touch input, a simple-yet-effective decoder for reconstructing typed words from such spatial data, a large web-scale background language model (LM), and a method for incorporating LM personalization. Using the Enron email corpus as a personalization test set, we show for the first time at this scale that a combined spatial-language model reduces word error rate from a pre-model baseline of 38.4% down to 5.7%, and that LM personalization can improve this further to 4.6%.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2702123.2702503

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Charniak, E., Blaheta, D., Ge, N., Hall, K., Hale, J., and Johnson, M. BLLIP 1987-89 Wall Street Journal Corpus Release 1.
  2. How Fast Can you Type on your Phone? CHI 2015, Crossings, Seoul, Korea
  3. Jurafsky, D., and Martin, J. H. Speech & Language Processing, second ed. Prentice Hall, 2008.
  4. Kristensson, P. O., and Zhai, S. SHARK2: A large vocabulary shorthand writing system for pen-based computers. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST '04, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2004), 43-52.
  5. Stolcke, A. Entropy-based pruning of back-off language models. In Proceedings of News Transcription and Understanding Workshop, DARPA (Lansdowne, VA, 1998), 270-274.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fowler, A., Partridge, K., Chelba, C., Bi, X., Ouyang, T., & Zhai, S.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-04-18
Pages
649-658
OpenAlex
W2051780479
Cited by
127
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6
FWCI
4.79
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01 DC009834)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
language modeling, personalization, word error rate, typing accuracy, proper names

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review