An Eye for AI: Eye-Tracking the Micro-Interruptions of GenAI Code Suggestions
Tarek Alakmeh, Sarah D’Angelo, Thomas Fritz
Abstract
Generative AI code suggestion tools, such as GitHub Copilot, are increasingly integrated into developer workflows. While these tools promise productivity gains, the actual impact on developer cognition and task performance has been mixed. In this paper, we present the first in-depth eye-tracking study of how developers interact with generative AI code suggestions during programming. We recruited 33 professionals and student developers and recorded their gaze behavior, code suggestion interactions, and code editing activity during programming sessions. By combining high-resolution eye-tracking data with fine-grained logging of AI-generated suggestions, we quantify the cognitive costs of reviewing code suggestions. Our findings show that approximately half of the generated suggestions are not even looked at. From the suggestions that were looked at, over 75% are not used. Although suggestions are only reviewed briefly (∼0.9 seconds on average), each suggestion introduces a micro-interruption that disrupts developer flow. We discuss opportunities for more efficient and context-aware generative AI code suggestions that minimize cognitive overhead.
• Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in HCI; Laboratory experiments; • Software and its engineering → Software creation and management.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 5915267f-191a-49f5-98ff-fbb6f12b9dceBuilds on6
- Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code ContributionsHammond Pearce, Baleegh Ahmad, Benjamin Tan, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt et al.S&P 2022 · 725 citations
- Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating ModelsShraddha Barke, Michael B. James, Nadia PolikarpovaOOPSLA 2023 · 408 citations
- Assistance or Disruption? Exploring and Evaluating the Design and Trade-offs of Proactive AI Programming SupportKevin Pu, Daniel Lazaro, Ian Arawjo, Haijun Xia et al.CHI 2025 · 31 citations
- Predicting Code Comprehension: A Novel Approach to Align Human Gaze with Code using Deep Neural NetworksTarek Alakmeh, David R. Reich, Lena A. Jäger, Thomas FritzFSE 2024 · 6 citations
- Licoeval: Evaluating LLMs on License Compliance in Code GenerationWeiwei Xu, Kai Gao, Hao He, Minghui ZhouICSE 2025 · 6 citations
Related papers
- A Large-Scale Survey on the Usability of AI Programming Assistants: Successes and ChallengesJenny T. Liang, Chenyang Yang, Brad A. MyersICSE 2024 · 126 citations
- Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted ProgrammingHussein Mozannar, Gagan Bansal, Adam Fourney, Eric HorvitzCHI 2024 · 88 citations
- A User-centered Security Evaluation of CopilotOwura Asare, Meiyappan Nagappan, N. AsokanICSE 2024 · 11 citations
- "My productivity is boosted, but ..." Demystifying Users' Perception on AI Coding AssistantsYunbo Lyu, Zhou Yang, Jieke Shi, Jianming Chang et al.ASE 2025 · 8 citations
- When to Show a Suggestion? Integrating Human Feedback in AI-Assisted ProgrammingHussein Mozannar, Gagan Bansal, Adam Fourney, Eric HorvitzAAAI 2024 · 39 citations
