Mid-Air Gestural Interaction with a Large Fogscreen
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
Projected walk-through fogscreens have been created, but there is little research on the evaluation of the interaction performance with fogscreens. The present study investigated mid-air hand gestures for interaction with a large fogscreen. Participants (N = 20) selected objects from a fogscreen using tapping and dwell-based gestural techniques, with and without vibrotactile/haptic feedback. In terms of Fitts’ law, the throughput was about 1.4 bps to 2.6 bps, suggesting that gestural interaction with a large fogscreen is a suitable and effective input method. Our results also suggest that tapping without haptic feedback has good performance and potential for interaction with a fogscreen, and that tactile feedback is not necessary for effective mid-air interaction. These findings have implications for the design of gestural interfaces suitable for interaction with fogscreens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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