Human-computer-intuition? Exploring the cognitive basis for intuition in embodied interaction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the claimed benefits of embodied interaction is that it is an intuitive form of human?computer interaction. While this claim seems to be widely accepted, few studies explore the underlying cognitive mechanisms of intuition in the context of tangible and embedded interaction design. What is intuitive interaction? What makes an interface intuitive to use? We explore these questions in the context of a responsive auditory environment. We propose that intuitive interaction can be facilitated by instantiating an embodied metaphor in the mapping layer between movement-based input actions and auditory system responses. We search for evidence of benefit through a comparative study of the same responsive auditory environment implemented with and without an embodied metaphor in the interactional mapping layer. Qualitative findings about the complexities and limitations of designing intuitive interaction are summarised and the implications for the design of embodied interaction discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it