EVALUATION OF REAL-TIME HAND MOTION TRACKING USING A RANGE CAMERA AND THE MEAN-SHIFT ALGORITHM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Several sensors have been tested for improving the interaction between humans and machines including traditional web cameras, special gloves, haptic devices, cameras providing stereo pairs of images and range cameras. Meanwhile, several methods are described in the literature for tracking hand motion: the Kalman filter, the mean-shift algorithm and the condensation algorithm. In this research, the combination of a range camera and the simple version of the mean-shift algorithm has been evaluated for its capability for hand motion tracking. The evaluation was assessed in terms of position accuracy of the tracking trajectory in x, y and z directions in the camera space and the time difference between image acquisition and image display. Three parameters have been analyzed regarding their influence on the tracking process: the speed of the hand movement, the distance between the camera and the hand and finally the integration time of the camera. Prior to the evaluation, the required warm-up time of the camera has been measured. This study has demonstrated the suitability of the range camera used in combination with the mean-shift algorithm for real-time hand motion tracking but for very high speed hand movement in the traverse plane with respect to the camera, the tracking accuracy is low and requires improvement.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".