Designing user-, hand-, and handpart-aware tabletop interactions with the TouchID toolkit
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
Recent work in multi-touch tabletop interaction introduced many novel techniques that let people manipulate digital content through touch. Yet most only detect touch blobs. This ignores richer interactions that would be possible if we could identify (1) which part of the hand, (2) which side of the hand, and (3) which person is actually touching the surface. Fiduciary-tagged gloves were previously introduced as a simple but reliable technique for providing this information. The problem is that its low-level programming model hinders the way developers could rapidly explore new kinds of user- and handpart-aware interactions. We contribute the TouchID toolkit to solve this problem. It allows rapid prototyping of expressive multi-touch interactions that exploit the aforementioned characteristics of touch input. TouchID provides an easy-to-use event-driven API as well as higher-level tools that facilitate development: a glove configurator to rapidly associate particular glove parts to handparts; and a posture configurator and gesture configurator for registering new hand postures and gestures for the toolkit to recognize. We illustrate TouchID's expressiveness by showing how we developed a suite of techniques that exploits knowledge of which handpart is touching the surface.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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