MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400142356 · doi:10.1145/3643834.3661551

GraspUI: Seamlessly Integrating Object-Centric Gestures within the Seven Phases of Grasping

2024· article· en· W4400142356 on OpenAlexaff
Adwait Sharma, Alexander Ivanov, Frances Lai, Tovi Grossman, Stephanie Santosa

Bibliographic record

VenueDesigning Interactive Systems Conference · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestureComputer scienceObject (grammar)Human–computer interactionComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objects are indispensable tools in our daily lives. Recent research has demonstrated their potential to act as conduits for digital interactions with microgestures, however, the primary focus was on situations where the hand firmly grasps an object. We introduce GraspUI, an exploratory design space of object-centric gestures within the seven distinct phases of the grasping process, spanning pre-, during, and post-grasp movements. We conducted ideation sessions with mixed-reality designers from industry and academia to explore gesture integration throughout the entire grasping process. The outcome was 38 storyboards envisioning practical applications. To evaluate the design space’s utility, we performed a video-based assessment with end-users. We then implemented an interactive prototype and quantified the overhead cost of performing proposed gestures through a secondary study. Participants reacted positively to gestures and could integrate them into existing usage of objects. To conclude, we highlight technical and usability guidelines for implementing and extending GraspUI systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesigning Interactive Systems ConferenceSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207