A Review of Interactive Conducting Systems: 1970-2015
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
Inspired by the expressiveness of gestures used by conductors, research in designing interactive conducting systems has explored numerous techniques. The design of more natural, expressive, and intuitive interfaces for communicating with computers could benefit from such techniques. The growth of whole-body interaction systems using motion-capture sensors creates enormous incentives for better understanding this research. To that end, we retraced the history of interactive conducting systems that attempt to come to grips with interpreting and exploiting the full potential of expressivity in the movement of conductors and to apply that to a computer interface. We focused on 55 papers, published from 1970 to 2015, that form the core of this history. We examined each system using four categories: interface (hardware), gestures (features), computational methods, and output parameters. We then conducted a thematic analysis, discussing how insights have inspired researchers to design a better user experience, improving naturalness, expressiveness and intuitiveness in interfaces over four decades.
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 | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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