Push, Tap, Dwell, and Pinch: Evaluation of Four Mid-air Selection Methods Augmented with Ultrasonic Haptic Feedback
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
This work compares four mid-air target selection methods (Push, Tap, Dwell, Pinch) with two types of ultrasonic haptic feedback (Select, HoverSelect) in a Fitts’ law experiment. Results revealed that Tap is the fastest, the most accurate, and one of the least physically and cognitively demanding selection methods. Pinch is relatively fast but error prone and physically and cognitively demanding. Dwell is slowest by design, yet the most accurate and the least physically and cognitively demanding. Both haptic feedback methods improve selection performance by increasing users’ spatial awareness. Particularly, Push augmented with Hover & Select feedback is comparable to Tap. Besides, participants perceive the selection methods as faster, more accurate, and more physically and cognitively comfortable with the haptic feedback methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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