MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094989392 · doi:10.1145/3427314

Exploring User Defined Gestures for Ear-Based Interactions

2020· article· en· W3094989392 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestureHuman–computer interactionWearable computerComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Interface (matter)Gesture recognitionUser interfaceWearable technologyMultimediaArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human ear is highly sensitive and accessible, making it especially suitable for being used as an interface for interacting with smart earpieces or augmented glasses. However, previous works on ear-based input mainly address gesture sensing technology and researcher-designed gestures. This paper aims to bring more understandings of gesture design. Thus, for a user elicitation study, we recruited 28 participants, each of whom designed gestures for 31 smart device-related tasks. This resulted in a total of 868 gestures generated. Upon the basis of these gestures, we compiled a taxonomy and concluded the considerations underlying the participants' designs that also offer insights into their design rationales and preferences. Thereafter, based on these study results, we propose a set of user-defined gestures and share interesting findings. We hope this work can shed some light on not only sensing technologies of ear-based input, but also the interface design of future wearable interfaces.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.108 · 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