4.4 Article

Agreement Study Using Gesture Description Analysis

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON HUMAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 434-443

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/THMS.2020.2992216

Keywords

Gesture recognition; user centered design; human computer interaction; participatory design; agreement analysis; gesture descriptors

Funding

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
  2. National Institute of Health (NIH) [1R18HS024887-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Choosing adequate gestures for touchless interfaces is a challenging task that has a direct impact on human-computer interaction. Such gestures are commonly determined by the designer, ad-hoc, rule-based, or agreement-based methods. Previous approaches to assess agreement grouped the gestures into equivalence classes and ignored the integral properties that are shared between them. In this article, we propose a generalized framework that inherently incorporates the gesture descriptors into the agreement analysis. In contrast to previous approaches, we represent gestures using binary description vectors and allow them to be partially similar. In this context, we introduce a new metric referred to as soft agreement rate (SAR) to measure the level of agreement and provide a mathematical justification for this metric. Furthermore, we perform computational experiments to study the behavior of SAR and demonstrate that existing agreement metrics are a special case of our approach. Our method is evaluated and tested through a guessability study conducted with a group of neurosurgeons. Nevertheless, our formulation can be applied to any other user-elicitation study. Results show that the level of agreement obtained by SAR is 2.64 times higher than the previous metrics. Finally, we show that our approach complements the existing agreement techniques by generating an artificial lexicon based on the most agreed properties.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available