VIBES: Exploring Viewer Spatial Interactions as Direct Input for Livestreamed Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Livestreaming has rapidly become a popular online pastime, with real-time interaction between streamer and viewer being a key motivating feature. However, viewers have traditionally had limited opportunity to directly influence the streamed content; even when such interactions are possible, it has been reliant on text-based chat. We investigate the potential of spatial interaction on the livestreamed video content as a form of direct, real-time input for livestreamed applications. We developed VIBES, a flexible digital system that registers viewers' mouse interactions on the streamed video, i.e., clicks or movements, and transmits it directly into the streamed application. We used VIBES as a technology probe; first designing possible demonstrative interactions and using these interactions to explore streamers' perception of viewer influence and possible challenges and opportunities. We then deployed applications built using VIBES in two livestreams to explore its effects on audience engagement and investigate their relationships with the stream, the streamer, and fellow audience members. The use of spatial interactions enhances engagement and participation and opens up new avenues for both streamer-viewer and viewer-viewer participation. We contextualize our findings around a broader understanding of motivations and engagement in livestreaming, and we propose design guidelines and extensions for future research.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".