First insights in perception of feet and lower-body stimuli for proximity and collision feedback in 3D user interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The visual and auditory quality of computer-mediated stimuli for virtual and extended reality (VR/XR) is rapidly improving. Still, it remains challenging to provide a fully embodied sensation and awareness of objects surrounding, approaching, or touching us in a 3D environment, though it can greatly aid task performance in a 3D user interface. For example, feedback can provide warning signals for potential collisions (e.g., bumping into an obstacle while navigating) or pinpointing areas where one’s attention should be directed to (e.g., points of interest or danger). These events inform our motor behaviour and are often associated with perception mechanisms associated with our so-called peripersonal and extrapersonal space models that relate our body to object distance, direction, and contact point/impact. We will discuss these references spaces to explain the role of different cues in our motor action responses that underlie 3D interaction tasks. However, providing proximity and collision cues can be challenging. Various full-body vibration systems have been developed that stimulate body parts other than the hands, but can have limitations in their applicability and feasibility due to their cost and effort to operate, as well as hygienic considerations associated with e.g., Covid-19. Informed by results of a prior study using low-frequencies for collision feedback, in this paper we look at an unobtrusive way to provide spatial, proximal and collision cues. Specifically, we assess the potential of foot sole stimulation to provide cues about object direction and relative distance, as well as collision direction and force of impact. Results indicate that in particular vibration-based stimuli could be useful within the frame of peripersonal and extrapersonal space perception that support 3DUI tasks. Current results favor the feedback combination of continuous vibrotactor cues for proximity, and bass-shaker cues for body collision. Results show that users could rather easily judge the different cues at a reasonably high granularity. This granularity may be sufficient to support common navigation tasks in a 3DUI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".