Affordance-Based and User-Defined Gestures for Spatial Tangible Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although mid-air hand gestures have been widely adopted by VR/AR products (e.g., Quest 2 and HoloLens), some drawbacks remain due to their lack of tangibility and tactile feedback. Opportunistic Tangible User Interfaces could address these shortcomings by repurposing existing objects in one's physical environment. However, there has yet to be a systematic investigation of the gestures that would be desirable when using opportunistic objects or how such gestures would be impacted by such objects. In this work, we conducted an elicitation study to investigate the desirability of object and gesture combinations across a variety of interactions. The results contribute (1) an opportunistic tangible UI gesture set for spatial interfaces, and (2) an Affordance-Based Object Selector Scheme that identifies ideal objects for tangible input given a desired input gesture, based on that object's physical affordances. Arising from these findings is the vision of the Adaptive Tangible User Interface, which supports the on-the-fly composition of tangible interfaces based on the affordances found in the physical environment and a user's input task.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".