Finger walking: motion editing with contact-based hand performance
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
We present a system for generating full-body animations from the performance on a touch-sensitive tabletop of “finger walking”, where two fingers are used to pantomime leg movements. A user study was conducted to explore how users can communicate full-body motion using their hands, which concluded that finger walking is a naturally-chosen and comfortable performance method. Based on contact data recorded during this study, the properties of a variety of performed locomotion types were analyzed to determine which motion parameters are most reliable and expressive for the purpose of generating corresponding full-body animations. Based on this analysis, a compact set of motion features was developed for classifying the locomotion type of a finger performance. A prototype interactive animation system was implemented to generate full-body animations of a known locomotion type from finger walking by estimating the motion path of a finger performance, and editing the path of a corresponding animation to match. The classification accuracy and output animation quality of this system was evaluated in a second user study, demonstrating that satisfying full-body animations can be reliably generated from finger performances.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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