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

Carlo Flemming

dblp:318/7916 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

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
Immersive interaction · 77% Interaction techniques and input · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Immersive interaction › locomotion
locomotion interface
0.612022
How to Take a Brake from Embodied Locomotion - Seamless Status Control Methods for Seated Leaning Interfaces · VR 2022
Interaction techniques and input › input modality
multimodal input
0.212022
How to Take a Brake from Embodied Locomotion - Seamless Status Control Methods for Seated Leaning Interfaces · VR 2022

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

user study · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 How to Take a Brake from Embodied Locomotion - Seamless Status Control Methods for Seated Leaning Interfaces
abstract
Embodied locomotion, especially leaning, has one major problem. Effectively the regular functionality of the utilized body parts is overwritten. Thus, in this work, we propose 6 different status control methods that seamlessly switch off (brake) a seated leaning locomotion interface. Different input modalities, such as a physical button, voice, and gestures/metaphors, are used and evaluated against a baseline condition and a leaning interface with a bilateral transfer function. In a user study, participants were encouraged, but not forced to use these interfaces. They did, and the most diegetic interface, a hover-board metaphor, was the most preferred. However, the overall results are more heterogeneous and the interfaces vary in their suitability for different applications/scenarios. Therefore, we summarized the results in a guideline.
Carlo Flemming, Benjamin Weyers, Daniel Zielasko
VR1