MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202064793 · doi:10.1145/3447527.3474875

Low-level Voice and Hand-Tracking Interaction Actions: Explorations with Let's Go There

2021· article· en· W3202064793 on OpenAlexaff
Jaisie Sin, Cosmin Munteanu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceTracking (education)Social relationSelection (genetic algorithm)Multimodal interactionArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hand-tracking allows users to engage with a virtual environment with their own hands, rather than the more traditional method of using accompanying controllers in order to operate the device they are using and interact with the virtual world. We seek to explore the range of low-level interaction actions and high-level interaction tasks and domains can be associated with the multimodal hand-tracking and voice input in VR. Thus, we created Let's Go There, which explores this joint-input method. So far, we have identified four low-level interaction actions which are exemplified by this demo: positioning oneself, positioning others, selection, and information assignment. We anticipate potential high-level interaction tasks and domains to include customer service training, social skills training, and cultural competency training (e.g. when interacting with older adults). Let's Go There, the system described in this paper, had been previously demonstrated at CUI 2020 and MobileHCI 2021. We have since updated our approach to its development to separate it into low- and high-level interactions. Thus, we believe there is value in bringing it to MobileHCI again to highlight these different types of interactions for further showcase and discussion.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207