MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finger Tracking for Human Computer Interface Using Multiple Sensor Data Fusion

2022· article· en· W4308091066 on OpenAlexaff
Zhengyang Wang, Jason Gu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAccelerometerInertial measurement unitGyroscopeWirelessBluetoothVirtual realityWireless sensor networkMatch movingTracking (education)Wired gloveSensor fusionComputer visionReal-time computingInterface (matter)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringMotion (physics)Computer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As human-computer interface advances from two to three dimensions, new input devices are required to allow low-cost learning and increased human involvement in virtual reality contexts. In this study, we offer a small, finger-worn, wireless motion-tracking platform that can be reprogrammed for a number of functions to enhance mobile computing. First, it functions as a wireless mouse in the air without requiring a surface for a mouse or trackpad, making it appropriate for augmented-reality or virtual-reality systems. Second, it supports single-finger motion tracking in its entirety. A more complex version is able to mix information from more units on multiple fingers to create a greater variety of options. The prototype of our ring will have an ultra-compact wireless sensing platform with an on-board triaxial accelerometer, triaxial magnetometer, triaxial gyroscope, and a short-range wireless Bluetooth transmitter with a ToF sensor for finger flexion detection. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the accuracy and usefulness of the IMU sensor breakout board have been conducted. The results demonstrate that the IMU sensor finger tracking system is intuitive for mouse-like tasks.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207