SwipeSense: Exploring the Feasibility of Back-of-Device Swipe Interaction Using Built-In IMU Sensors MHCI030
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing dimensions of smartphones have intensified the challenges associated with screen reachability. Back-of-device (BoD) interaction expands the range of reachability and offers a promising solution to mitigate screen occlusion while enhancing one-handed interactions. However, much of the existing research relies on incorporating additional hardware components. In this paper, we present SwipeSense a technique for exploring the feasibility of directional swipe interactions on the back of devices, utilizing built-in inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors and machine learning models. We conducted a user study with 12 participants who performed 9600 BoD swipes in 8 distinct directions while holding the device naturally. The results of our machine learning models indicate that various directional swipes on the back of the device can be accurately distinguished using only the built-in IMU sensors of the phone, achieving a range of model accuracy between 72% and 95%. Furthermore, we showcase potential applications for these gestures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".