Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Adrian Gierakowski

dblp:129/1984 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none

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

Human-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.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Interaction techniques and input · 100%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Audio and music processing · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Interaction techniques and input › input sensing › touch sensing
capacitive touch sensing
0.212013
The space between the notes: adding expressive pitch control to the piano keyboard · CHI 2013
Interaction techniques and input
musical interface
0.212013
The space between the notes: adding expressive pitch control to the piano keyboard · CHI 2013
Audio and music processing › music technology
digital musical instruments
0.012013
The space between the notes: adding expressive pitch control to the piano keyboard · CHI 2013

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

user study · 0.3capacitive touch sensing · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 The space between the notes: adding expressive pitch control to the piano keyboard
abstract
This paper addresses the question of how to extend the capabilities of a well-established interface in a way that respects users' existing expertise. The piano-style keyboard is among the most widely used and versatile of digital musical interfaces. However, it lacks the ability to alter the pitch of a note after it has been played, a limitation which prevents the performer from executing common expressive techniques including vibrato and pitch bending. We present a system for controlling pitch from the keyboard surface using capacitive touch sensors to measure the locations of the player's fingers on the keys. The large community of trained pianists makes the keyboard a compelling target for augmentation, but it also poses a challenge: how can a musical interface be extended while making use of the existing techniques performers have spent thousands of hours learning? In this paper, user studies with conservatory pianists explore the constraints of traditional keyboard technique and evaluate the usability of the continuous pitch control system. The paper also discusses implications for the extension of other established interfaces in musical and non-musical contexts.
Andrew P. McPherson, Adrian Gierakowski, Adam M. Stark
CHI2