Usability Comparison between 2D and 3D Control Methods for the Operation of Hovering Objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper experimentally analyzed the cognitive load of users based on different methods of operating hovering objects, such as drones. The traditional gamepad-type control method (2D) was compared with a control method that mapped the movement directions of the drone to the natural manipulation gestures of the user using a Leap Motion device (3D). Twenty participants operated the drone on an obstacle course using the two control methods. The drone’s trajectory was measured using motion-capture equipment with a reflective marker. The distance traveled by the drone, operation time, and trajectory smoothness were calculated and compared between the two control methods. The results showed that when the drone’s movements were mapped to the user’s natural directional gestures, the drone’s 3D movements were perceived as more natural and smoother. A more intuitive drone control method can reduce cognitive load and minimize operational errors, making it more user friendly and efficient. However, due to the users’ lack of familiarity with Leap Motion, it resulted in longer distance and time and lower subjective satisfaction; therefore, a more improved 3D control method over Leap Motion is needed to address the limitations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".