User-Defined Gestures with Physical Props in Virtual Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When interacting with virtual reality (VR) applications like CAD and open-world games, people may want to use gestures as a means of leveraging their knowledge from the physical world. However, people may prefer physical props over handheld controllers to input gestures in VR. We present an elicitation study where 21 participants chose from 95 props to perform manipulative gestures for 20 CAD-like and open-world game-like referents. When analyzing this data, we found existing methods for elicitation studies were insufficient to describe gestures with props, or to measure agreement with prop selection (i.e., agreement between sets of items). We proceeded by describing gestures as context-free grammars, capturing how different props were used in similar roles in a given gesture. We present gesture and prop agreement scores using a generalized agreement score that we developed to compare multiple selections rather than a single selection. We found that props were selected based on their resemblance to virtual objects and the actions they afforded; that gesture and prop agreement depended on the referent, with some referents leading to similar gesture choices, while others led to similar prop choices; and that a small set of carefully chosen props can support multiple gestures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".