Tangible Around-Device Interaction Using Rotatory Gestures with a Magnetic Ring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of mobile applications use built-in touchscreens and/or accelerometers to provide direct ways for user inputs. Yet, the need to manipulate the device itself (e.g. touch, tilt) poses usability issues such as occlusion and inaccuracy. To address these issues, research proposed using the built-in magnetometer and magnets to facilitate around-device interactions. However, there is little evaluation in how this technique impacts performance and user experience beyond simple docking tasks. To fill this gap, we explored the mobile gameplay context by implementing an interface that uses rotatory gestures from a magnetic ring as input, and compared two control mappings (angular and linear) with touch and tilt in a usability study using a mobile game. We found that rotatory gestures with the ring, when mapped to angular controls, were on par with touch and superior over tilt, and engendered greater gameplay experience and sense of mapping. Based on our findings, we discuss implications of using this technique for gameplay, as well as other applications.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".