Hand interaction designs in mixed and augmented reality head mounted display: a scoping review and classification
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
Mixed reality has made its first step towards democratization in 2017 with the launch of a first generation of commercial devices. As a new medium, one of the challenges is to develop interactions using its endowed spatial awareness and body tracking. More specifically, at the crossroad between artificial intelligence and human-computer interaction, the goal is to go beyond the Window, Icon, Menu, Pointer (WIMP) paradigm humans are mainly using on desktop computer. Hand interactions either as a standalone modality or as a component of a multimodal modality are one of the most popular and supported techniques across mixed reality prototypes and commercial devices. In this context, this paper presents scoping literature review of hand interactions in mixed reality. The goal of this review is to identify the recent findings on hand interactions about their design and the place of artificial intelligence in their development and behavior. This review resulted in the highlight of the main interaction techniques and their technical requirements between 2017 and 2022 as well as the design of the Metaphor-behavior taxonomy to classify those interactions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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