Touch Is Everywhere: Floor Surfaces as Ambient Haptic Interfaces
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
Floor surfaces are notable for the diverse roles that they play in our negotiation of everyday environments. Haptic communication via floor surfaces could enhance or enable many computer-supported activities that involve movement on foot. In this paper, we discuss potential applications of such interfaces in everyday environments and present a haptically augmented floor component through which several interaction methods are being evaluated. We describe two approaches to the design of structured vibrotactile signals for this device. The first is centered on a musical phrase metaphor, as employed in prior work on tactile display. The second is based upon the synthesis of rhythmic patterns of virtual physical impact transients. We report on an experiment in which participants were able to identify communication units that were constructed from these signals and displayed via a floor interface at well above chance levels. The results support the feasibility of tactile information display via such interfaces and provide further indications as to how to effectively design vibrotactile signals for them.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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