Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 40 references

Detecting Reading-Induced Confusion Using EEG and Eye Tracking

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that combining EEG and eye tracking detects reading-induced confusion with an average weighted accuracy of 77.3%, beating unimodal baselines by 4-22%.

desk verdict Plausible abstract, but the full text we were handed is a different paper, so the 77.3% number is unverifiable from the available evidence; still worth a referee who can check the methodology. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14442 v1 pith:BHTAUCNJ submitted 2025-08-20 cs.HC cs.AI

Haojun Zhuang , Dünya Baradari , Nataliya Kosmyna , Arnav Balyan , Constanze Albrecht , Stephanie Chen , Pattie Maes This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords reading-inducedconfusionEEGeyetrackingN400multimodalclassificationbrain-computerinterfacesemanticincongruenceadaptivelearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that confusion arising while reading can be recognized from passive brain and gaze signals, and that combining the two modalities works better than either alone. Eleven adults read short real-world paragraphs while EEG and eye movements were recorded, and machine-learning classifiers were trained to distinguish confused from non-confused states. The multimodal models reached an average weighted participant accuracy of 77.3% and a best accuracy of 89.6%, outperforming single-modality baselines by 4 to 22%. The neural signal was concentrated in temporal brain regions, which the authors argue supports wearable low-electrode brain-computer interfaces for real-time confusion monitoring in adaptive learning and human-computer interaction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the N400 event-related potential, a neural response to semantic incongruence, used as the EEG feature; it is paired with behavioral markers from eye tracking. A machine-learning classifier fuses these features to distinguish confusion from non-confusion on a per-moment basis, with participant-level weighting in the evaluation. The N400 is the load-bearing neural marker, and the multimodal fusion is the load-bearing methodological mechanism.

What would settle it

Re-run the same multimodal classifiers on the same data with confusion labels shuffled across participants or reading segments; if accuracy does not drop to near chance, the reported 77.3% is tracking participant identity or label noise rather than confusion. Alternatively, reproduce the experiment with labels derived from independent comprehension probes instead of self-reports and check whether the 4-22% multimodal gain and 77.3% accuracy persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that reading-induced confusion has a detectable multimodal signature: the N400 event-related potential, a known neural marker of semantic incongruence, combined with eye-tracking behavioral markers, allows machine-learning models to classify confused reading moments at an average weighted participant accuracy of 77.3% (best 89.6%). The multimodal fusion improves classification by 4-22% over unimodal baselines, and temporal EEG regions carry the dominant neural signal, pointing toward low-electrode wearable BCIs for passive confusion monitoring.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy numbers mean something only if the ground-truth labels of 'confused' reading moments are valid and were created independently of the EEG and eye-tracking signals used for classification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the accuracy holds, adaptive reading interfaces could quietly detect when a user is confused and offer simplifications or explanations in real time.
  • Low-electrode EEG, placed mainly over temporal regions, could plausibly replace full-cap systems for confusion monitoring in wearable BCIs.
  • Eye tracking alone appears insufficient for this task, giving a concrete reason to invest in multimodal sensing for cognitive state estimation.
  • The same pipeline could be ported to other comprehension-related states, such as mind-wandering, disengagement, or surprise during reading.
  • The N400-dominance result suggests that semantic incongruity is the main trigger of measurable reading confusion, informing how confusing texts are diagnosed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The headline accuracy numbers are reported without error bars, cross-validation details, or a chance-level comparison; with only 11 participants, the 4-22% multimodal gain could shrink or reverse under tighter statistical evaluation.
  • The validity of the result rests on how confusion was labeled; if labels came from post-reading self-reports, the classifier may be learning a mix of memory, preference, and confusion rather than a clean cognitive state.
  • A concrete testable extension is to re-run the same feature pipeline on a held-out corpus of longer documents or across different languages; if temporal-region dominance persists, the neural marker claim is generalizable, and if not, the method may only work on short paragraphs.
  • The 77.3% average weighted accuracy should be compared against participant-identity baselines; if the classifier is partly recognizing the person rather than the confusion, then low-electrode BCIs would need per-user calibration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The abstract of arXiv:2508.14442 describes a multimodal EEG and eye-tracking study of reading-induced confusion with 11 participants, claiming 77.3% average weighted participant accuracy, a 4-22% multimodal improvement over unimodal baselines, a best accuracy of 89.6%, and temporal-region EEG dominance with implications for wearable low-electrode BCIs. The supplied full text, however, is arXiv:2508.14441, a robotics paper on dexterous in-hand manipulation (FBI), and contains no material on EEG, eye tracking, reading, or confusion. The submission therefore provides no methods, results, or statistical details that could support the abstract's claims.

Significance. The reported phenomenon—passive EEG and gaze signals detecting reading-induced confusion at roughly 77% weighted accuracy—would be practically interesting for adaptive reading interfaces, personalized learning, and low-electrode BCI applications. However, because the manuscript as submitted does not contain the study itself, the significance cannot be assessed. There are no reproducible code, machine-checked proofs, parameter-free derivations, or falsifiable predictions to credit; the supplied full text is entirely unrelated to the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text] The supplied full text is a different paper: arXiv:2508.14441, titled 'FBI: Learning Dexterous In-hand Manipulation with Dynamic Visuotactile Shortcut Policy.' None of the abstract's components are present—participant sample, stimulus design, confusion-label protocol, EEG/eye-tracking preprocessing, N400 quantification, classifier architecture, cross-validation, or results. Consequently, every headline number in the abstract (77.3% weighted accuracy, 4-22% improvements, 89.6% best accuracy) is uncheckable. This is a load-bearing gap that cannot be repaired by local edits to the supplied text.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract does not define the ground-truth label 'confused reading moment,' nor does it state whether labels were obtained independently of the EEG/gaze features (e.g., real-time self-report, post-reading comprehension probes, or expert annotation). With only 11 participants, if labels are derived from the same reading episodes or are influenced by the features used for classification, the reported accuracy could reflect labeling artifacts or participant identity rather than confusion detection. The full paper needs to specify this protocol for the claim to be interpretable.
  3. [Abstract] No evaluation protocol is reported: there is no cross-validation scheme (participant-blocked or otherwise), no confidence intervals, no chance-level comparison, and no definition of 'average weighted participant accuracy.' Because the sample is N=11, standard precautions against participant leakage and fit-quality inflation are essential. Without these details, the 4-22% improvement band cannot be separated from variance. This is a second load-bearing gap in the central claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The 'N400 ERP' marker is introduced without specifying the measurement paradigm, electrode montage, time window, or citation. The full paper should provide these details and relevant references.
  2. [Abstract] The phrases 'average weighted participant accuracy' and 'best accuracy' should be formally defined. If 'best accuracy' is selected across participants, folds, or reruns, it may overstate expected performance and should be clearly qualified.
  3. [Full text] If this is a submission error, the authors should verify that the correct full text is attached. The current full text contains unrelated figures, tables, and references that do not correspond to the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identifiable from supplied material; the full text is a mismatched arXiv paper.

full rationale

The supplied full text (arXiv:2508.14441, a robotics paper on visuotactile manipulation) does not correspond to the abstract under review (arXiv:2508.14442, an EEG/eye-tracking study of reading-induced confusion). The abstract alone reports an empirical machine-learning result: multimodal EEG+eye-tracking models improve accuracy by 4-22% over unimodal baselines, with 77.3% average weighted participant accuracy. Circularity requires a concrete reduction: e.g., a label defined in terms of the features, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation. No such reduction can be quoted from the abstract. The abstract states that the N400 ERP is used as a marker of semantic incongruence, but it does not specify that confusion labels are defined as N400 activity, nor does it present any equations showing that the classifier output is equivalent to its input by construction. The absence of label-construction and cross-validation details is a verification gap, not an observed circular step. Therefore, no significant circularity is found, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

For an 11-participant naturalistic reading study, the central claim rests almost entirely on domain assumptions the abstract states without evidence: that N400 marks semantic incongruence in this setting, that confusion labels (undefined in the abstract) are accurate, and that gaze features add independent signal. The ML hyperparameters, EEG preprocessing choices, and participant weighting scheme that determine the 77.3% figure are all undisclosed. No entities are invented; the contribution is an empirical accuracy claim.

free parameters (3)
  • Classifier hyperparameters and feature weights = not reported in abstract
    The 77.3% multimodal accuracy depends on the specific classifier, feature set, and hyperparameters, none of which the abstract discloses.
  • EEG preprocessing and N400 quantification parameters = not reported in abstract
    Isolating N400 from naturalistic recordings requires filter bands, epoch windows, and artifact rejection thresholds; these choices determine the reported accuracies.
  • Participant weighting scheme = not reported in abstract
    'Weighted participant accuracy' implies participant-level weights that are undefined in the abstract; the weighting can materially change the headline number.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The N400 ERP is a reliable marker of semantic incongruence and can be isolated in naturalistic reading EEG from 11 participants.
    Invoked in the abstract as 'a well-established neural marker'; this is the bridge from raw EEG to 'confusion' and is load-bearing for every classification result.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth confusion labels (self-report or behavioral) are accurate enough to train classifiers.
    The abstract never defines how confusion was labeled; if labels are noisy, the reported accuracy is an upper bound with label noise included.
  • domain assumption Eye-tracking gaze features carry independent confusion information beyond the EEG features.
    The 4-22% multimodal improvement claim rests on gaze adding signal; this is asserted as an empirical result, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting Reading-Induced Confusion Using EEG and Eye Tracking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BHTAUCNJ

@misc{pith2026250814442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting Reading-Induced Confusion Using EEG and Eye Tracking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BHTAUCNJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14442}
}
read the original abstract

Humans regularly navigate an overwhelming amount of information via text media, whether reading articles, browsing social media, or interacting with chatbots. Confusion naturally arises when new information conflicts with or exceeds a reader's comprehension or prior knowledge, posing a challenge for learning. In this study, we present a multimodal investigation of reading-induced confusion using EEG and eye tracking. We collected neural and gaze data from 11 adult participants as they read short paragraphs sampled from diverse, real-world sources. By isolating the N400 event-related potential (ERP), a well-established neural marker of semantic incongruence, and integrating behavioral markers from eye tracking, we provide a detailed analysis of the neural and behavioral correlates of confusion during naturalistic reading. Using machine learning, we show that multimodal (EEG + eye tracking) models improve classification accuracy by 4-22% over unimodal baselines, reaching an average weighted participant accuracy of 77.3% and a best accuracy of 89.6%. Our results highlight the dominance of the brain's temporal regions in these neural signatures of confusion, suggesting avenues for wearable, low-electrode brain-computer interfaces (BCI) for real-time monitoring. These findings lay the foundation for developing adaptive systems that dynamically detect and respond to user confusion, with potential applications in personalized learning, human-computer interaction, and accessibility.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dexterous manipulation from images: Autonomous real- world rl via substep guidance,

    K. Xu, Z. Hu, R. Doshi, A. Rovinsky, V . Kumar, A. Gupta, and S. Levine, “Dexterous manipulation from images: Autonomous real- world rl via substep guidance,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 5938–5945

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Dexmv: Imitation learning for dexterous manipulation from human videos,

    Y . Qin, Y .-H. Wu, S. Liu, H. Jiang, R. Yang, Y . Fu, and X. Wang, “Dexmv: Imitation learning for dexterous manipulation from human videos,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 570–587

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation,

    O. M. Andrychowicz, B. Baker, M. Chociej, R. Jozefowicz, B. Mc- Grew, J. Pachocki, A. Petron, M. Plappert, G. Powell, A. Ray et al., “Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Rotating without seeing: Towards in-hand dexterity through touch,

    Z.-H. Yin, B. Huang, Y . Qin, Q. Chen, and X. Wang, “Rotating without seeing: Towards in-hand dexterity through touch,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10880, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Anyrotate: Gravity- invariant in-hand object rotation with sim-to-real touch,

    M. Yang, C. Lu, A. Church, Y . Lin, C. Ford, H. Li, E. Pso- mopoulou, D. A. Barton, and N. F. Lepora, “Anyrotate: Gravity- invariant in-hand object rotation with sim-to-real touch,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07391, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Dextouch: Learning to seek and manipulate objects with tactile dexterity,

    K.-W. Lee, Y . Qin, X. Wang, and S.-C. Lim, “Dextouch: Learning to seek and manipulate objects with tactile dexterity,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    General in-hand object rotation with vision and touch,

    H. Qi, B. Yi, S. Suresh, M. Lambeta, Y . Ma, R. Calandra, and J. Malik, “General in-hand object rotation with vision and touch,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 2549–2564

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Dexterity from touch: Self-supervised pre-training of tactile representations with robotic play,

    I. Guzey, B. Evans, S. Chintala, and L. Pinto, “Dexterity from touch: Self-supervised pre-training of tactile representations with robotic play,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12076 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    See to touch: Learning tactile dexterity through visual incentives,

    I. Guzey, Y . Dai, B. Evans, S. Chintala, and L. Pinto, “See to touch: Learning tactile dexterity through visual incentives,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 13 825–13 832

    2024

  2. [10]

    Robot synesthesia: In-hand manipulation with visuotactile sensing,

    Y . Yuan, H. Che, Y . Qin, B. Huang, Z.-H. Yin, K.-W. Lee, Y . Wu, S.-C. Lim, and X. Wang, “Robot synesthesia: In-hand manipulation with visuotactile sensing,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 6558–6565

    2024

  3. [11]

    Learning the signatures of the human grasp using a scalable tactile glove,

    S. Sundaram, P. Kellnhofer, Y . Li, J.-Y . Zhu, A. Torralba, and W. Ma- tusik, “Learning the signatures of the human grasp using a scalable tactile glove,” Nature, vol. 569, no. 7758, pp. 698–702, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Capturing forceful interaction with deformable objects using a deep learning-powered stretchable tactile array,

    C. Jiang, W. Xu, Y . Li, Z. Yu, L. Wang, X. Hu, Z. Xie, Q. Liu, B. Yang, X. Wang et al. , “Capturing forceful interaction with deformable objects using a deep learning-powered stretchable tactile array,”Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 9513, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    One step diffusion via shortcut models,

    K. Frans, D. Hafner, S. Levine, and P. Abbeel, “One step diffusion via shortcut models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12557 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Learning complex dexterous manipulation with deep reinforcement learning and demonstrations,

    A. Rajeswaran, V . Kumar, A. Gupta, G. Vezzani, J. Schulman, E. Todorov, and S. Levine, “Learning complex dexterous manipulation with deep reinforcement learning and demonstrations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.10087, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    3d diffusion policy,

    Y . Ze, G. Zhang, K. Zhang, C. Hu, M. Wang, and H. Xu, “3d diffusion policy,” arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv–2403, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Manicm: Real-time 3d diffusion policy via consistency model for robotic manipulation,

    G. Lu, Z. Gao, T. Chen, W. Dai, Z. Wang, W. Ding, and Y . Tang, “Manicm: Real-time 3d diffusion policy via consistency model for robotic manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01586 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Adaflow: Imitation learning with variance-adaptive flow-based policies,

    X. Hu, Q. Liu, X. Liu, and B. Liu, “Adaflow: Imitation learning with variance-adaptive flow-based policies,” Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems , vol. 37, pp. 138 836–138 858, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Consistency policy: Accelerated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation,

    A. Prasad, K. Lin, J. Wu, L. Zhou, and J. Bohg, “Consistency policy: Accelerated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07503, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dexterous im- itation made easy: A learning-based framework for efficient dexterous manipulation,

    S. P. Arunachalam, S. Silwal, B. Evans, and L. Pinto, “Dexterous im- itation made easy: A learning-based framework for efficient dexterous manipulation,” in 2023 ieee international conference on robotics and automation (icra). IEEE, 2023, pp. 5954–5961

    2023

  12. [20]

    Dextreme: Transfer of agile in-hand manipulation from simulation to reality,

    A. Handa, A. Allshire, V . Makoviychuk, A. Petrenko, R. Singh, J. Liu, D. Makoviichuk, K. Van Wyk, A. Zhurkevich, B. Sundaralingamet al., “Dextreme: Transfer of agile in-hand manipulation from simulation to reality,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Dexterous manipula- tion graphs,

    S. Cruciani, C. Smith, D. Kragic, and K. Hang, “Dexterous manipula- tion graphs,” in2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 2040–2047

    2018

  14. [22]

    Adaptive fingers coordination for robust grasp and in-hand manipulation under disturbances and unknown dynamics,

    F. Khadivar and A. Billard, “Adaptive fingers coordination for robust grasp and in-hand manipulation under disturbances and unknown dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 3350– 3367, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    In-hand manipulation planning using human motion dictionary,

    A. Hammoud, V . Belcamino, A. Carfi, V . Perdereau, and F. Mas- trogiovanni, “In-hand manipulation planning using human motion dictionary,” in 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 927–933

    2022

  16. [24]

    Task-oriented hand motion retargeting for dexterous manipulation imitation,

    D. Antotsiou, G. Garcia-Hernando, and T.-K. Kim, “Task-oriented hand motion retargeting for dexterous manipulation imitation,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) workshops, 2018, pp. 0–0

    2018

  17. [25]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via ac- tion diffusion,

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via ac- tion diffusion,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , p. 02783649241273668, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Motion before action: Diffusing object motion as manipulation condition,

    Y . Su, X. Zhan, H. Fang, Y .-L. Li, C. Lu, and L. Yang, “Motion before action: Diffusing object motion as manipulation condition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09658 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Flow matching for generative modeling,

    Y . Lipman, R. T. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le, “Flow matching for generative modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, pro- ceedings, part III 18 ...

    2015

  21. [29]

    Shadow hand,

    ShadowRobot, “Shadow hand,” https://www.shadowrobot.com/

  22. [30]

    A glove-based system for studying hand-object manipulation via joint pose and force sensing,

    H. Liu, X. Xie, M. Millar, M. Edmonds, F. Gao, Y . Zhu, V . J. Santos, B. Rothrock, and S.-C. Zhu, “A glove-based system for studying hand-object manipulation via joint pose and force sensing,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)....

    2017

  23. [31]

    Allegrohand,

    WonikRobotics, “Allegrohand,” https://www.wonikrobotics.com/, 2013

    2013

  24. [32]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa, “Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems . IEEE, 2012, pp. 5026–5033

    2012

  25. [33]

    Isaac sim - robotics simulation and synthetic data genera- tion,

    NVIDIA, “Isaac sim - robotics simulation and synthetic data genera- tion,” https://developer.nvidia.com/isaac-sim, 2023, (accessed on May 2, 2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Vrl3: A data-driven framework for visual deep reinforcement learning,

    C. Wang, X. Luo, K. Ross, and D. Li, “Vrl3: A data-driven framework for visual deep reinforcement learning,” Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 32 974–32 988, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Intersection- free robot manipulation with soft-rigid coupled incremental potential contact,

    W. Du, S. Yao, X. Wang, Y . Xu, W. Xu, and C. Lu, “Intersection- free robot manipulation with soft-rigid coupled incremental potential contact,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Grip: A general robotic incremental potential contact simulation dataset for unified deformable-rigid coupled grasp- ing,

    S. Ma, W. Du, C. Yu, Y . Jiang, Z. Zong, T. Xie, Y . Chen, Y . Yang, X. Han, and C. Jiang, “Grip: A general robotic incremental potential contact simulation dataset for unified deformable-rigid coupled grasp- ing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05020 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Dynamic reconstruction of hand-object interaction with distributed force-aware contact represen- tation,

    Z. Yu, W. Xu, P. Xie, Y . Li, and C. Lu, “Dynamic reconstruction of hand-object interaction with distributed force-aware contact represen- tation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09572 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Toch: Spatio-temporal object-to-hand correspondence for motion refine- ment,

    K. Zhou, B. L. Bhatnagar, J. E. Lenssen, and G. Pons-Moll, “Toch: Spatio-temporal object-to-hand correspondence for motion refine- ment,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 1–19

    2022

  32. [40]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.