Extend, Push, Pull: Smartphone Mediated Interaction in Spatial Augmented Reality via Intuitive Mode Switching
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
We investigate how smartphones can be used to mediate the manipulation of smartphone-based content in spatial augmented reality (SAR). A major challenge here is in seamlessly transitioning a phone between its use as a smartphone to its use as a controller for SAR. Most users are familiar with hand extension as a way for using a remote control for SAR. We therefore propose to use hand extension as an intuitive mode switching mechanism for switching back and forth between the mobile interaction mode and the spatial interaction mode. Based on this intuitive mode switch, our technique enables the user to push smartphone content to an external SAR environment, interact with the external content, rotate-scale-translate it, and pull the content back into the smartphone, all the while ensuring no conflict between mobile interaction and spatial interaction. To ensure feasibility of hand extension as mode switch, we evaluate the classification of extended and retracted states of the smartphone based on the phone’s relative 3D position with respect to the user’s head while varying user postures, surface distances, and target locations. Our results show that a random forest classifier can classify the extended and retracted states with a 96% accuracy on average.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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