Fedor Korsakov

dblp:19/8738 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
2 papers
Visualization and visual analytics · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Visualization and visual analytics › data visualization › animated visualization
motion visualization
0.322014
Trend-Centric Motion Visualization: Designing and Applying a New Strategy for Analyzing Scientific Motion Collections · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2014
A user study to understand motion visualization in virtual reality · VR 2012
Visualization and visual analytics › visual analytics
immersive analytics
0.112012
A user study to understand motion visualization in virtual reality · VR 2012
Visualization and visual analytics
scientific visualization
0.112012
A user study to understand motion visualization in virtual reality · VR 2012
Bioinformatics and computational biology
biomechanics
0.112014
Trend-Centric Motion Visualization: Designing and Applying a New Strategy for Analyzing Scientific Motion Collections · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2014
Usability and user experience research
user study
0.012012
A user study to understand motion visualization in virtual reality · VR 2012

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

variance indicator · 0.4median motion · 0.42d and 3d graphical techniques · 0.4user study · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Trend-Centric Motion Visualization: Designing and Applying a New Strategy for Analyzing Scientific Motion Collections
abstract
In biomechanics studies, researchers collect, via experiments or simulations, datasets with hundreds or thousands of trials, each describing the same type of motion (e.g., a neck flexion-extension exercise) but under different conditions (e.g., different patients, different disease states, pre- and post-treatment). Analyzing similarities and differences across all of the trials in these collections is a major challenge. Visualizing a single trial at a time does not work, and the typical alternative of juxtaposing multiple trials in a single visual display leads to complex, difficult-to-interpret visualizations. We address this problem via a new strategy that organizes the analysis around motion trends rather than trials. This new strategy matches the cognitive approach that scientists would like to take when analyzing motion collections. We introduce several technical innovations making trend-centric motion visualization possible. First, an algorithm detects a motion collection's trends via time-dependent clustering. Second, a 2D graphical technique visualizes how trials leave and join trends. Third, a 3D graphical technique, using a median 3D motion plus a visual variance indicator, visualizes the biomechanics of the set of trials within each trend. These innovations are combined to create an interactive exploratory visualization tool, which we designed through an iterative process in collaboration with both domain scientists and a traditionally-trained graphic designer. We report on insights generated during this design process and demonstrate the tool's effectiveness via a validation study with synthetic data and feedback from expert musculoskeletal biomechanics researchers who used the tool to analyze the effects of disc degeneration on human spinal kinematics.
David Schroeder, Fedor Korsakov, Carissa Mai-Ping Knipe, Lauren Thorson, Arin M. Ellingson, David J. Nuckley, John V. Carlis, Daniel F. Keefe
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.2
2012 A user study to understand motion visualization in virtual reality
abstract
Studies of motion are fundamental to science. For centuries, pictures of motion have factored importantly in making scientific discoveries possible. Today, there is perhaps no tool more powerful than interactive virtual reality (VR) for conveying complex space-time data to scientists, doctors, and others; however, relatively little is known about how to design virtual environments in order to best facilitate these analyses. In designing virtual environments for presenting scientific motion data (e.g., 4D data captured via medical imaging or motion tracking) our intuition is most often to “reanimate” these data in VR, displaying moving virtual bones and other 3D structures in virtual space as if the viewer were watching the data being collected in a biomechanics lab. However, recent research in other contexts suggests that although animated displays are effective for presenting known trends, static displays are more effective for data analysis.
Dane M. Coffey, Fedor Korsakov, Marcus Ewert, Haleh Hagh-Shenas, Lauren Thorson, Daniel F. Keefe
VR2
2012 Visualizing Motion Data in Virtual Reality: Understanding the Roles of Animation, Interaction, and Static Presentation
abstract
Abstract We present a study of interactive virtual reality visualizations of scientific motions as found in biomechanics experiments. Our approach is threefold. First, we define a taxonomy of motion visualizations organized by the method (animation, interaction, or static presentation) used to depict both the spatial and temporal dimensions of the data. Second, we design and implement a set of eight example visualizations suggested by the taxonomy and evaluate their utility in a quantitative user study. Third, together with biomechanics collaborators, we conduct a qualitative evaluation of the eight example visualizations applied to a current study of human spinal kinematics. Results suggest that visualizations in this style that use interactive control for the time dimension of the data are preferable to others. Within this category, quantitative results support the utility of both animated and interactive depictions for space; however, qualitative feedback suggest that animated depictions for space should be avoided in biomechanics applications.
Dane M. Coffey, Fedor Korsakov, Marcus Ewert, Haleh Hagh-Shenas, Lauren Thorson, Arin M. Ellingson, David J. Nuckley, Daniel F. Keefe
Comput. Graph. Forum2