MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320478435 · doi:10.1109/embc.2014.6945140

Touchfree medical interfaces

2014· article· en· W2320478435 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathaniel Rossol, Irene Cheng, Rui Shen, Anup Basu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsGestureStylusComputer scienceZoomInterface (matter)Human–computer interactionVisualizationSet (abstract data type)User interfaceModalitiesComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMultimediaEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time control of visual display systems via mid-air hand gestures offers many advantages over traditional interaction modalities. In medicine, for example, it allows a practitioner to adjust display values, e.g. contrast or zoom, on a medical visualization interface without the need to re-sterilize the interface. However, when users are holding a small tool (such as a pen, surgical needle, or computer stylus) the need to constantly put the tool down in order to make hand gesture interactions is not ideal. This work presents a novel interface that automatically adjusts for gesturing with hands and hand-held tools to precisely control medical displays. The novelty of our interface is that it uses a single set of gestures designed to be equally effective for fingers and hand-held tools without using markers. This type of interface was previously not feasible with low-resolution depth sensors such as Kinect, but is now achieved by using the recently released Leap Motion controller. Our interface is validated through a user study on a group of people given the task of adjusting parameters on a medical image.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207