pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08198 · v1 · pith:M6D6QOLYnew · submitted 2026-06-06 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.ET

Exploring Above-neck Unimanual Swipe Gestures for Off-Device Earable Interaction

Shaikh Shawon Arefin Shimon , Ali Neshati , Junwei Sun , Qiang Xu , Jian Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 19:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.ET
keywords earable interactionswipe gesturesoff-device inputabove-neck gesturesunimanual gesturesangular swipesgesture preferenceswearable HCI
0
0 comments X

The pith

A within-subjects study maps preferred start and end regions for nonaxial and angular above-neck swipes to control earables.

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

The paper investigates expanding input for compact in-ear devices by exploring hand swipes performed in the space above the neck without touching the device. It moves beyond common horizontal and vertical swipes to examine unidirectional gestures at varied angles and more complex angular shapes such as L, U, or V. Data from 24 participants performing 5,568 swipes in a controlled study reveal consistent preferences for where users begin and end each shape and which shapes feel natural in that interaction space. These patterns matter because they could allow earables to support a wider set of gestures while keeping the device small and hands-free.

Core claim

In a within-subject gesture motion analysis study with 24 participants analyzing 5,568 swipes of varying shape, orientation, and complexity, preferred starting and ending regions were identified for different unidirectional and angular swipe shapes, along with intuitive swipe shapes within the off-device, above-neck manual interaction space.

What carries the argument

The gesture motion analysis that records and compares start/end regions and shape preferences across unidirectional and angular swipes performed above the neck.

If this is right

  • Nonaxial and angular swipes can be combined with traditional axial gestures to create a larger gesture vocabulary for earables.
  • Designers gain concrete region and shape guidelines for placing these gestures in the above-neck space.
  • Current earable sensing hardware may support recognition of the identified intuitive shapes without additional hardware.
  • Applications become feasible in scenarios such as calls, media control, or notifications without looking at or touching the device.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Gesture recognizers could use the mapped start and end regions as priors to reduce false positives.
  • Longitudinal studies could check whether the same preferences persist after users practice the gestures over weeks.
  • The space might support hybrid gestures that combine swipes with finger postures for even more distinct commands.

Load-bearing premise

Preferences recorded in a controlled lab study with 24 participants will translate to everyday conditions and can be detected reliably by existing earable sensors.

What would settle it

A real-world test that measures whether users still choose the same start and end regions and whether sensors achieve usable recognition accuracy while participants walk, talk, or wear the devices during daily activities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08198 by Ali Neshati, Jian Zhao, Junwei Sun, Qiang Xu, Shaikh Shawon Arefin Shimon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Unimanual (one-handed) swipe using the left hand [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Different parts of study area and apparatus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Different views in custom gesture analysis application. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Swipe interaction regions and angular displacement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gesture metrics (DV1–DV4) and NasaTLX workload for RQ1 and RQ2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gesture region layout, metrics and ranking for 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual references for individual swipe shapes in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visual references for individual swipe shapes in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gesture region layout, metrics and ranking for 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Proposed 5 region pattern, and a set of 26 onskin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Despite their growing popularity, in-ear Earable / Hearable devices (i.e., ear-mounted wearables) face interaction challenges due to limited input space and compact form factors. To enhance interaction capabilities, researchers are exploring off-device hand-based input spaces above the neck using midair and onskin gestures. However, existing literature primarily focuses on axial swipes (i.e., horizontal and vertical), leaving nonaxial swipes (i.e., unidirectional swipes with varied orientations) and angular swipes (e.g., L, U, or V) largely underexplored despite their potential interaction advantages. To address this gap, we conducted a within-subject gesture motion analysis study with 24 participants, analyzing 5,568 swipes of varying shape, orientation, and complexity. Our results revealed preferred starting and ending regions for different unidirectional and angular swipe shapes, as well as intuitive swipe shapes within the off-device, above-neck manual interaction space. We further examine off-device swipe characteristics, discuss the feasibility of recognizing these earable gestures with current sensing technologies, and highlight their potential application in various scenarios. These findings broaden the understanding of off-device earable gestures and provide design insights for integrating suitable nonaxial and angular swipes alongside traditional axial gestures to enhance interaction with in-ear earable devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports a within-subjects lab study with 24 participants who performed 5,568 instructed unimanual swipes (unidirectional and angular shapes at varying orientations) in the off-device above-neck space. It identifies preferred start/end regions for different shapes, notes intuitive shapes, provides kinematic characterizations, qualitatively discusses recognition feasibility with earable sensors (IMU, mic, etc.), and offers design implications for expanding earable input beyond axial swipes.

Significance. If the observed spatial preferences and shape intuitions prove robust, the work would usefully expand the design space for earable interaction by documenting non-axial and angular options. The scale of the motion corpus (5,568 trials) is a positive feature for an elicitation-style study. However, because the manuscript supplies only controlled-lab kinematics and a qualitative feasibility discussion, the translation to deployable earable input remains untested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Study] Abstract and Study section: the central claims about 'preferred starting and ending regions' and 'intuitive swipe shapes' rest on motion-analysis results whose statistical methods, exclusion criteria, inter-rater reliability for region coding, and error analysis are not described, making the quantitative support for the reported preferences unverifiable from the provided text.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion / Feasibility subsection: the assertion that the gestures are suitable for earable interaction is load-bearing for the design-insight contribution, yet the manuscript contains no sensor recordings, recognition pipeline, or accuracy results; only a qualitative discussion is supplied. This leaves the mapping from lab motion to usable input untested.
  3. [Results] Results: the generalization claim implicit in the design recommendations assumes that preferences observed under instructed, seated lab conditions will hold under unconstrained posture, movement, and fatigue; no supporting in-the-wild or secondary-task data are presented to address this assumption.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify how 'unidirectional' versus 'angular' shapes were defined and coded for participants.
  2. [Study] Add a table or figure summarizing the exact distribution of the 5,568 trials across shape/orientation conditions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

Thank you for the referee's constructive comments. We address each major point below with point-by-point responses, indicating planned revisions where they strengthen the work without altering its scope as a motion-elicitation study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Study] Abstract and Study section: the central claims about 'preferred starting and ending regions' and 'intuitive swipe shapes' rest on motion-analysis results whose statistical methods, exclusion criteria, inter-rater reliability for region coding, and error analysis are not described, making the quantitative support for the reported preferences unverifiable from the provided text.

    Authors: We agree the Methods section lacks sufficient detail on analysis procedures. In the revision we will add explicit descriptions of: the frequency-based and statistical tests used to identify preferred regions, trial exclusion criteria (e.g., incomplete motion or sensor loss), inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa between two coders), and error analysis. These additions will make the quantitative basis for the reported preferences fully verifiable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion / Feasibility subsection: the assertion that the gestures are suitable for earable interaction is load-bearing for the design-insight contribution, yet the manuscript contains no sensor recordings, recognition pipeline, or accuracy results; only a qualitative discussion is supplied. This leaves the mapping from lab motion to usable input untested.

    Authors: The core contribution is the elicitation and kinematic analysis of non-axial and angular gestures; the feasibility subsection is deliberately qualitative and cites prior earable sensing literature rather than claiming implemented recognition. We will revise the text to state the scope more explicitly and avoid any implication of tested deployability. No sensor recordings were collected because system implementation lies outside this study's motion-analysis focus. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Results] Results: the generalization claim implicit in the design recommendations assumes that preferences observed under instructed, seated lab conditions will hold under unconstrained posture, movement, and fatigue; no supporting in-the-wild or secondary-task data are presented to address this assumption.

    Authors: The study was intentionally designed as a controlled lab elicitation to isolate spatial and shape preferences; this is standard practice for initial gesture-exploration work. The manuscript already flags the lab setting as a limitation. Design recommendations are presented as insights derived from the observed data rather than proven generalizations. We will review wording in Results and Discussion to prevent overstatement, but additional in-the-wild validation requires a separate study. revision: no

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Providing in-the-wild or secondary-task data to test generalization beyond the controlled lab setting, as no such data were collected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical gesture-elicitation study reports observed participant data with no derivations or self-referential fits

full rationale

The paper is a within-subjects lab study reporting kinematic observations from 24 participants performing 5568 instructed swipes. It describes preferred start/end regions and intuitive shapes directly from the collected motion data. No equations, model fits, predictions derived from parameters, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided abstract or description. The central claims are descriptive summaries of participant behavior rather than any derivation chain that could reduce to its own inputs by construction. This is a standard empirical reporting structure that remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical HCI user study with no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or postulated entities; the central claims rest on participant data collection and qualitative/quantitative observation rather than axioms or models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5778 in / 1069 out tokens · 27722 ms · 2026-06-27T19:14:17.526405+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    David Ahlström, Khalad Hasan, and Pourang Irani. 2014. Are You Comfortable Doing That?: Acceptance Studies of Around-Device Gestures in and for Public Settings. InProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services(Toronto, ON, Canada)(MobileHCI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 193–202. doi:10.1145/26...

    work page doi:10.1145/2628363.2628381 2014

  2. [2]

    Harras, and Moustafa Youssef

    Khaled Alkiek, Khaled A. Harras, and Moustafa Youssef. 2022. EarGest: Hand Gesture Recognition with Earables. InProceedings of the 2022 19th Annual IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and Networking(Stock- holm, Sweden)(SECON ’22). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 91–99. doi:10.1109/ SECON55815.2022.9918622

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Khaled Alkiek, Moustafa Youssef, and Khaled A. Harras. 2023. EarBender: En- abling Rich IMU-based Natural Hand-to-Ear Interaction in Commodity Earables. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing & the 2023 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computing(Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico)(UbiCom...

    work page doi:10.1145/3594739.3610671 2023

  4. [4]

    Wobbrock

    Lisa Anthony and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2010. A Lightweight Multistroke Rec- ognizer for User Interface Prototypes. InProceedings of Graphics Interface 2010(Ottawa, ON, Canada)(GI ’10). CIPS, Toronto, ON, Canada, 245–252. doi:10.5555/1839214.1839258

    work page doi:10.5555/1839214.1839258 2010

  5. [5]

    2025.Introducing AirPods Pro 3, the Ultimate Audio Experience

    Apple Inc. 2025.Introducing AirPods Pro 3, the Ultimate Audio Experience. Apple Inc. Retrieved May 18, 2026 from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/ introducing-airpods-pro-3-the-ultimate-audio-experience/

    2025

  6. [6]

    Shaikh Shawon Arefin Shimon, Ali Neshati, Junwei Sun, Qiang Xu, and Jian Zhao. 2024. Exploring Uni-manual Around Ear Off-Device Gestures for Earables. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.8, 1, Article 3 (March 2024), 29 pages. doi:10.1145/3643513

    work page doi:10.1145/3643513 2024

  7. [7]

    Felix Barroso, Norbert Freedman, and Stanley Grand. 1980. Self-Touching, Per- formance, and Attentional Processes.Percept. Mot. Skills50, 3_suppl (June 1980), 1083–1089. doi:10.2466/pms.1980.50.3c.1083

    work page doi:10.2466/pms.1980.50.3c.1083 1980

  8. [8]

    Abdelkareem Bedri, David Byrd, Peter Presti, Himanshu Sahni, Zehua Gue, and Thad Starner. 2015. Stick It in Your Ear: Building an In-Ear Jaw Movement Sensor. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers(Osaka, Japan)(...

    work page doi:10.1145/2800835.2807933 2015

  9. [9]

    Xiang Cao and Shumin Zhai. 2007. Modeling Human Performance of Pen Stroke Gestures. InProceedings of the 2007 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(San Jose, CA, USA)(CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1495–1504. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240850

    work page doi:10.1145/1240624.1240850 2007

  10. [10]

    Yetong Cao, Chao Cai, Anbo Yu, Fan Li, and Jun Luo. 2023. EarAcE: Empowering Versatile Acoustic Sensing via Earable Active Noise Cancellation Platform.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.7, 2, Article 47 (June 2023), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3596242

    work page doi:10.1145/3596242 2023

  11. [11]

    Tao Chen, Yongjie Yang, Chonghao Qiu, Xiaoran Fan, Xiuzhen Guo, and Longfei Shangguan. 2024. Enabling Hands-Free Voice Assistant Activation on Earphones. InProceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and Services(Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan)(MOBISYS ’24). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 155–168. doi:10.1145/3643832.3661890

    work page doi:10.1145/3643832.3661890 2024

  12. [12]

    Xiang ’Anthony’ Chen, Julia Schwarz, Chris Harrison, Jennifer Mankoff, and Scott E. Hudson. 2014. Air+touch: Interweaving Touch & In-air Gestures. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(Honolulu, HI, USA)(UIST ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 519–525. doi:10.1145/2642918.2647392

    work page doi:10.1145/2642918.2647392 2014

  13. [13]

    Yu-Chun Chen, Chia-Ying Liao, Shuo-wen Hsu, Da-Yuan Huang, and Bing-Yu Chen. 2020. Exploring User Defined Gestures for Ear-Based Interactions.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, ISS, Article 186 (Nov. 2020), 20 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3427314

    2020

  14. [14]

    Wen-Wei Cheng and Liwei Chan. 2024. BodyTouch: Investigating Eye-Free, On- Body and Near-Body Touch Interactions with HMDs.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.7, 4, Article 152 (Jan. 2024), 22 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3631426

    2024

  15. [15]

    Seokmin Choi, Yang Gao, Yincheng Jin, Se jun Kim, Jiyang Li, Wenyao Xu, and Zhanpeng Jin. 2022. PPGface: Like What You Are Watching? Earphones Can "Feel" Your Facial Expressions.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.6, 2, Article 48 (July 2022), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/3534597

    work page doi:10.1145/3534597 2022

  16. [16]

    Romit Roy Choudhury. 2021. Earable Computing: A New Area to Think About. InProceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications(Virtual Event, UK)(HotMobile ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 147–153. doi:10.1145/3446382.3450216

    work page doi:10.1145/3446382.3450216 2021

  17. [17]

    Niloofar Dezfuli, Mohammadreza Khalilbeigi, Jochen Huber, Florian Müller, and Max Mühlhäuser. 2012. PalmRC: Imaginary Palm-Based Remote Control for Eyes-Free Television Interaction. InProceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video(Berlin, Germany)(EuroITV ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 27–34. doi:10.1145/2325616.2325623

    work page doi:10.1145/2325616.2325623 2012

  18. [18]

    Pouriya Amini Digehsara, Joao Vıtor Possamai de Menezes, Christoph Wagner, Michael Bärhold, Petr Schaffer, Dirk Plettemeier, and Peter Birkholz. 2022. A User- Friendly Headset for Radar-Based Silent Speech Recognition.Proc. Interspeech7, 21 (Sept. 2022), 4835–4839. doi:10.21437/Interspeech.2022-10090

    work page doi:10.21437/interspeech.2022-10090 2022

  19. [19]

    David Dobbelstein, Gabriel Haas, and Enrico Rukzio. 2017. The Effects of Mobility, Encumbrance, and (Non-)dominant Hand on Interaction with Smartwatches. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (Maui, HI, USA)(ISWC ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 90–93. doi:10.1145/ 3123021.3123033

    arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    John D Eastwood, Daniel Smilek, and Philip M Merikle. 2003. Negative Facial Expression Captures Attention and Disrupts Performance.Percept. Psychophys. 65, 3 (April 2003), 352–358. doi:10.3758/BF03194566

    work page doi:10.3758/bf03194566 2003

  21. [21]

    Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen. 1972. Hand Movements.J. Commun.22, 4 (Dec. 1972), 353–374. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1972.tb00163.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1972.tb00163.x 1972

  22. [22]

    Shariff AM Faleel, Michael Gammon, Kevin Fan, Da-Yuan Huang, Wei Li, and Pourang Irani. 2021. HPUI: Hand Proximate User Interfaces for One-Handed Interactions on Head Mounted Displays.IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.27, 11 (Aug. 2021), 4215–4225. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2021.3106493

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021.3106493 2021

  23. [23]

    Jonny Farringdon, Vanessa Oni, Chi Ming Kan, and Leo Poll. 1999. Co-Modal Browser-An Interface for Wearable Computers. InDigest of Papers. Third Interna- tional Symposium on Wearable Computers(San Francisco, CA, USA)(ISWC ’99). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 45–51. doi:10.1109/ISWC.1999.806644

    work page doi:10.1109/iswc.1999.806644 1999

  24. [24]

    Andrea Ferlini, Alessandro Montanari, Cecilia Mascolo, and Robert Harle. 2020. Head Motion Tracking Through in-Ear Wearables. InProceedings of the 1st In- ternational Workshop on Earable Computing(London, UK)(EarComp ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 8–13. doi:10.1145/3345615.3361131

    work page doi:10.1145/3345615.3361131 2020

  25. [25]

    Shkurta Gashi, Aaqib Saeed, Alessandra Vicini, Elena Di Lascio, and Silvia San- tini. 2021. Hierarchical Classification and Transfer Learning to Recognize Head Gestures and Facial Expressions Using Earbuds. InProceedings of the 2021 Inter- national Conference on Multimodal Interaction(Montréal, QC, Canada)(ICMI ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 168–176. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3462244.3479921 2021

  26. [26]

    Hyunjae Gil and Ian Oakley. 2023. ThumbAir: In-Air Typing for Head Mounted Displays.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.6, 4, Article 164 (Jan. 2023), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3569474

    work page doi:10.1145/3569474 2023

  27. [27]

    Tovi Grossman, Xiang Anthony Chen, and George Fitzmaurice. 2015. Typing on Glasses: Adapting Text Entry to Smart Eyewear. InProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(Copenhagen, Denmark)(MobileHCI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 144–152. doi:10.1145/2785830.2785867

    work page doi:10.1145/2785830.2785867 2015

  28. [28]

    Sean Gustafson, Daniel Bierwirth, and Patrick Baudisch. 2010. Imaginary Inter- faces: Spatial Interaction with Empty Hands and without Visual Feedback. In Proceedings of the 23nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(New York, NY, USA)(UIST ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3–12. doi:10.1145/1866029.1866033 GI ’26, June 09–12, 2026, K...

    work page doi:10.1145/1866029.1866033 2010

  29. [29]

    Arman Hafizi, Jay Henderson, Ali Neshati, Wei Zhou, Edward Lank, and Daniel Vogel. 2023. In-vehicle Performance and Distraction for Midair and Touch Direc- tional Gestures. InProceedings of the 2023 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 316, 13 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581335

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581335 2023

  30. [30]

    Jinni A Harrigan, John R Kues, John J Steffen, and Robert Rosenthal. 1987. Self- Touching and Impressions of Others.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.13, 4 (Dec. 1987), 497–512. doi:10.1177/0146167287134007

    work page doi:10.1177/0146167287134007 1987

  31. [31]

    Hayati Havlucu, Mehmet Yarkın Ergin, İdil Bostan, Oğuz Turan Buruk, Tilbe Göksun, and Oğuzhan Özcan. 2017. It Made More Sense: Comparison of User- Elicited On-skin Touch and Freehand Gesture Sets. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions, held as part of HCI International 2017(Vancouver, BC, Cana...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58697-7_11 2017

  32. [32]

    Juan David Hincapié-Ramos, Xiang Guo, Paymahn Moghadasian, and Pourang Irani. 2014. Consumed Endurance: A Metric to Quantify Arm Fatigue of Mid-Air Interactions. InProceedings of the 2014 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Toronto, ON, Canada)(CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1063–1072. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557130

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557130 2014

  33. [33]

    Fahimul Islam, William Delamare, Farida Chowdhury, and Khalad Hasan

    Tamzid Hossain, Md. Fahimul Islam, William Delamare, Farida Chowdhury, and Khalad Hasan. 2022. Exploring Social Acceptability and Users’ Preferences of Head-and Eye-Based Interaction with Mobile Devices. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia(Leuven, Belgium) (MUM ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 12–23. doi:10....

    work page doi:10.1145/3490632.3490636 2022

  34. [34]

    Jingyang Hu, Hongbo Jiang, Zhu Xiao, Siyu Chen, Schahram Dustdar, and Jiangchuan Liu. 2024. HeadTrack: Real-Time Human-Computer Interaction via Wireless Earphones.IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.42, 4 (April 2024), 990–1002. doi:10.1109/JSAC.2023.3345381

    work page doi:10.1109/jsac.2023.3345381 2024

  35. [35]

    Roland Hutchinson. 2026. Beyond Audio: Why the AirPods Ultra’s New Infrared Sensors Are a Game-Changer. Retrieved May 19, 2026 from https://www.geeky- gadgets.com/apple-airpods-ultra-cameras-ai/

    2026

  36. [36]

    Koki Iguma, Kazuya Murao, and Hiroki Watanabe. 2023. Input Interface with Touch and Non-touch Interactions using Atmospheric Pressure for Hearable Devices. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers(Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico)(ISWC ’23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. doi:10.1145/3594738.3611354

    work page doi:10.1145/3594738.3611354 2023

  37. [37]

    Poika Isokoski. 2001. Model for Unistroke Writing Time. InProceedings of the 2001 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Seattle, WA, USA)(CHI ’01). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 357–364. doi:10.1145/365024.365299

    work page doi:10.1145/365024.365299 2001

  38. [38]

    Jackson, Brenton A

    Benjamin G. Jackson, Brenton A. Baugh, David H. Bloom, Gemma A. Roper, Karlin Y. Bark, and Thomas S. Hulbert. 2023. Wearable Interactive Audio Device. https://patents.google.com/patent/US11743623B2 Patent No. US11743623B2, Filed July 13th., 2020, Issued Aug. 29th., 2023

    2023

  39. [39]

    Yincheng Jin, Yang Gao, Xuhai Xu, Seokmin Choi, Jiyang Li, Feng Liu, Zhengx- iong Li, and Zhanpeng Jin. 2022. EarCommand: "Hearing" Your Silent Speech Commands In Ear.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.6, 2, Article 57 (July 2022), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3534613

    work page doi:10.1145/3534613 2022

  40. [40]

    Dey, and Zhanpeng Jin

    Yincheng Jin, Yang Gao, Yanjun Zhu, Wei Wang, Jiyang Li, Seokmin Choi, Zhangyu Li, Jagmohan Chauhan, Anind K. Dey, and Zhanpeng Jin. 2021. Soni- cASL: An Acoustic-based Sign Language Gesture Recognizer Using Earphones. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.5, 2, Article 67 (June 2021), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3463519

    work page doi:10.1145/3463519 2021

  41. [41]

    Carver, Tien Pham, Nam Bui, Phuc Nguyen, Xia Zhou, and Tam Vu

    Vimal Kakaraparthi, Qijia Shao, Charles J. Carver, Tien Pham, Nam Bui, Phuc Nguyen, Xia Zhou, and Tam Vu. 2021. FaceSense: Sensing Face Touch with an Ear-worn System.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.5, 3, Article 110 (Sept. 2021), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3478129

    work page doi:10.1145/3478129 2021

  42. [42]

    Prerna Khanna, Tanmay Srivastava, Shijia Pan, Shubham Jain, and Phuc Nguyen

  43. [43]

    InProceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications(Virtual Event, UK)(HotMobile ’21)

    JawSense: Recognizing Unvoiced Sound using a Low-cost Ear-worn System. InProceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications(Virtual Event, UK)(HotMobile ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 44–49. doi:10.1145/3446382.3448363

    work page doi:10.1145/3446382.3448363

  44. [44]

    Takashi Kikuchi, Yuta Sugiura, Katsutoshi Masai, Maki Sugimoto, and Bruce H. Thomas. 2017. EarTouch: Turning the Ear into an Input Surface. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services(Vienna, Austria)(MobileHCI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 27, 6 pages. doi:10.1145/3098279.3098538

    work page doi:10.1145/3098279.3098538 2017

  45. [45]

    Marion Koelle, Swamy Ananthanarayan, and Susanne Boll. 2020. Social Ac- ceptability in HCI: A Survey of Methods, Measures, and Design Strategies. InProceedings of the 2020 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376162

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376162 2020

  46. [46]

    Barry Kollee, Sven Kratz, and Anthony Dunnigan. 2014. Exploring Gestural Interaction in Smart Spaces Using Head-Mounted Devices with Ego-centric Sensing. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Honolulu, HI, USA)(SUI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 40–49. doi:10.1145/ 2659766.2659781

    arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    Yen Lee Angela Kwok, Jan Gralton, and Mary-Louise McLaws. 2015. Face Touch- ing: A Frequent Habit That Has Implications for Hand Hygiene.Am. J. Infect. Control43, 2 (Feb. 2015), 112–114. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2014.10.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2014.10.015 2015

  48. [48]

    Jae Yeol Lee, Gue Won Rhee, and Dong Woo Seo. 2010. Hand Gesture-based Tangi- ble Interactions for Manipulating Virtual Objects in a Mixed Reality Environment. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.51 (April 2010), 1069–1082. doi:10.1007/s00170-010- 2671-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00170-010- 2010

  49. [49]

    Leiva, Sunjun Kim, Wenzhe Cui, Xiaojun Bi, and Antti Oulasvirta

    Luis A. Leiva, Sunjun Kim, Wenzhe Cui, Xiaojun Bi, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2021. How We Swipe: A Large-scale Shape-writing Dataset and Empirical Findings. InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction(Toulouse & Virtual, France)(MobileHCI ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 13 pages. doi:10.1145/3447526.3472059

    work page doi:10.1145/3447526.3472059 2021

  50. [50]

    Ning Li, Tuoyang Zhou, Yingwei Zhou, Chen Guo, Deqiang Fu, Xiaoqing Li, and Zijing Guo. 2019. Research on Human-Computer Interaction Mode of Speech Recognition Based on Environment Elements of Command and Control System. InProceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Big Data and Information Analytics(Kunming, China)(BigDIA ’19). IEEE, Piscataw...

    work page doi:10.1109/bigdia.2019.8802812 2019

  51. [51]

    Wenmin Li, Xueyi Wan, Yanwei Shi, Nailang Yao, Ci Wang, and Zaifeng Gao. 2021. Depth and Breadth of Pie Menus for Mid-air Gesture Interaction.Int. J. Hum.- Comput. Interact.37, 2 (Aug. 2021), 131–140. doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1809245

    work page doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1809245 2021

  52. [52]

    Roman Lissermann, Jochen Huber, Aristotelis Hadjakos, Suranga Nanayakkara, and Max Mühlhäuser. 2014. EarPut: Augmenting Ear-Worn Devices for Ear-Based Interaction. InProceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: The Future of Design(Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)(OzCHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 300...

    work page doi:10.1145/2686612 2014

  53. [53]

    Dong Ma, Andrea Ferlini, and Cecilia Mascolo. 2021. OESense: Employing Occlusion Effect for in-Ear Human Sensing. InProceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services(Virtual Event, WI, USA)(MobiSys ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 175–187. doi:10.1145/ 3458864.3467680

    arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Metzger, M

    C. Metzger, M. Anderson, and T. Starner. 2004. FreeDigiter: A Contact-Free Device for Gesture Control. InProceedings of the 2004 8th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers(Arlington, VA, USA)(ISWC ’04, Vol. 1). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 18–21. doi:10.1109/ISWC.2004.23

    work page doi:10.1109/iswc.2004.23 2004

  55. [55]

    Microsoft. 2024. Azure Kinect DK. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ kinect-dk

    2024

  56. [56]

    Khairul Khaizi Mohd Shariff, Auni Nadiah Yusni, Mohd Adli Md Ali, Megat Syahirul Amin Megat Ali, Megat Zuhairy Megat Tajuddin, and M A A Younis. 2022. CW Radar Based Silent Speech Interface Using CNN. InProceedings of the 2022 IEEE Symposium on Wireless Technology & Applications(Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) (ISWTA ’22). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 76–81. doi:10...

    work page doi:10.1109/iswta55313.2022 2022

  57. [57]

    Stephanie Margarete Mueller, Sven Martin, and Martin Grunwald. 2019. Self- Touch: Contact Durations and Point of Touch of Spontaneous Facial Self-Touches Differ Depending on Cognitive and Emotional Load.PLOS ONE14, 3, Article e0213677 (March 2019), 19 pages. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213677

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213677 2019

  58. [58]

    Mark Nicas and Daniel Best. 2008. A Study Quantifying the Hand-to-Face Contact Rate and Its Potential Application to Predicting Respiratory Tract Infection.J. Gen. Psychol.5, 6 (April 2008), 347–352. doi:10.1080/15459620802003896

    work page doi:10.1080/15459620802003896 2008

  59. [59]

    AUKEY Official. 2025. AUKEY EP-T27 Soundstream Wireless Earbuds Noise Cancelling IPX7 Waterproof Black. https://www.aukey.com/products/aukey- soundstream-wireless-earbuds-noise-cancelling-ipx7-waterproof-black

    2025

  60. [60]

    DBA OptiTrack

    NaturalPoint, Inc. DBA OptiTrack. 2024. Optitrack: The Best Just Got Better. https://www.optitrack.com/about/

    2024

  61. [61]

    Laxmi Pandey, Khalad Hasan, and Ahmed Sabbir Arif. 2021. Acceptability of Speech and Silent Speech Input Methods in Private and Public. InProceedings of the 2021 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 251, 13 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3411764.3445430

    arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Francisco Perella-Holfeld, Shariff AM Faleel, and Pourang Irani. 2023. Evaluating Design Guidelines for Hand-Proximate User Interfaces. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1159–1173. doi:10.1145/3563657.3596117

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3596117 2023

  63. [63]

    Sen Qiu, Zhelong Wang, Hongyu Zhao, and Huosheng Hu. 2016. Using Dis- tributed Wearable Sensors to Measure and Evaluate Human Lower Limb Motions. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.65, 4 (April 2016), 939–950. doi:10.1109/TIM.2015. 2504078

    work page doi:10.1109/tim.2015 2016

  64. [64]

    Ravichandran

    Meera Radhakrishnan, Kushaan Misra, and V. Ravichandran. 2021. Applying “Earable” Inertial Sensing for Real-time Head Posture Detection. InProceed- ings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Com- munications Workshops and other Affiliated Events(Virtual Event, Germany) (PerCom Workshops ’21). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 176–1...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    Hanae Rateau, Edward Lank, and Zhe Liu. 2022. Leveraging Smartwatch and Earbuds Gesture Capture to Support Wearable Interaction.Proc. ACM Hum.- Comput. Interact.6, ISS, Article 557 (Nov. 2022), 20 pages. doi:10.1145/3567710 Exploring Above-Neck Unimanual Swipe Gestures for Off-Device Earable Interaction GI ’26, June 09–12, 2026, Kitchener - Waterloo, Onta...

    work page doi:10.1145/3567710 2022

  66. [66]

    Vera Remizova, Yulia Gizatdinova, and Veikko Surakka. 2022. Midair Gestural Techniques for Translation Tasks in Large-Display Interaction.Adv. Hum.- Comput. Interact.2022, 1, Article 9362916 (July 2022), 13 pages. doi:10.1155/2022/ 9362916

    work page doi:10.1155/2022/ 2022

  67. [67]

    Bradley Rey, Kening Zhu, Simon Tangi Perrault, Sandra Bardot, Ali Neshati, and Pourang Irani. 2022. Understanding and Adapting Bezel-to-Bezel Interactions for Circular Smartwatches in Mobile and Encumbered Scenarios.Proc. ACM Hum.- Comput. Interact.6, MHCI, Article 201 (Sept. 2022), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3546736

    work page doi:10.1145/3546736 2022

  68. [68]

    Tobias Röddiger, Christopher Clarke, Paula Breitling, Tim Schneegans, Haibin Zhao, Hans Gellersen, and Michael Beigl. 2022. Sensing with Earables: A System- atic Literature Review and Taxonomy of Phenomena.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.6, 3 (Sept. 2022), 1–57. doi:10.1145/3550314

    work page doi:10.1145/3550314 2022

  69. [69]

    Andrea Ronco, Philipp Schilk, and Michele Magno. 2024. TinyssimoRadar: In-Ear Hand Gesture Recognition with Ultra-Low Power mmWave Radars. InProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM Ninth International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation(Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR)(IoTDI ’24). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 192–202. doi:10.1109/IoTDI61053.2024.00021

    work page doi:10.1109/iotdi61053.2024.00021 2024

  70. [70]

    Yukina Sato, Takashi Amesaka, Takumi Yamamoto, Hiroki Watanabe, and Yuta Sugiura. 2024. Exploring User-Defined Gestures as Input for Hearables and Recognizing Ear-Level Gestures with IMUs.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, MHCI, Article 258 (Sept. 2024), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3676503

    work page doi:10.1145/3676503 2024

  71. [71]

    Ens, and Pourang P

    Marcos Serrano, Barrett M. Ens, and Pourang P. Irani. 2014. Exploring the Use of Hand-to-face Input for Interacting with Head-worn Displays. InProceedings of the 2014 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Toronto, ON, Canada)(CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3181–3190. doi:10.1145/2556288. 2556984

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288 2014

  72. [72]

    Xingzhe Song, Kai Huang, and Wei Gao. 2022. FaceListener: Recognizing Human Facial Expressions via Acoustic Sensing on Commodity Headphones. InProceed- ings of the 2022 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks(Milan, Italy)(IPSN ’22). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 145–157. doi:10.1109/IPSN54338.2022.00019

    work page doi:10.1109/ipsn54338.2022.00019 2022

  73. [73]

    Tanmay Srivastava, Prerna Khanna, Shijia Pan, Phuc Nguyen, and Shubham Jain

  74. [74]

    MuteIt: Jaw Motion Based Unvoiced Command Recognition Using Earable. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.6, 3, Article 140 (Sept. 2022), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3550281

    work page doi:10.1145/3550281 2022

  75. [75]

    Wei Sun, Franklin Mingzhe Li, Benjamin Steeper, Songlin Xu, Feng Tian, and Cheng Zhang. 2021. TeethTap: Recognizing Discrete Teeth Gestures Using Motion and Acoustic Sensing on an Earpiece. InProceedings of the 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(College Station, TX, USA)(IUI ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 161–169. doi:10.1145/3397...

    work page doi:10.1145/3397481.3450645 2021

  76. [76]

    Shunta Suzuki, Takashi Amesaka, Hiroki Watanabe, Buntarou Shizuki, and Yuta Sugiura. 2024. EarHover: Mid-Air Gesture Recognition for Hearables Using Sound Leakage Signals. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(UIST ’24). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 129, 13 pages. doi:10.1145/36547...

    work page doi:10.1145/3654777.3676367 2024

  77. [77]

    Huawei Tu, Weiyang Huan, Xingdong Yang, Xiangshi Ren, and Feng Tian. 2021. ArmMenu: Command Input on Distant Displays with Proprioception-Based Lateral Arm Movements.Behav. Inf. Technol.40, 13 (2021), 1428–1447. doi:10. 1080/0144929X.2020.1757760

    arXiv 2021

  78. [78]

    Vicon Motion Systems Ltd UK. 2023. Vicon: What is Motion Capture - Intelligence in Motion. https://www.vicon.com/about-us/what-is-motion-capture/

    2023

  79. [79]

    Wobbrock

    Radu-Daniel Vatavu, Lisa Anthony, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2012. Gestures as Point Clouds: A $P Recognizer for User Interface Prototypes. InProceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction(Santa Monica, CA, USA)(ICMI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 273–280. doi:10.1145/2388676.2388732

    work page doi:10.1145/2388676.2388732 2012

  80. [80]

    Wobbrock

    Radu-Daniel Vatavu, Lisa Anthony, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2013. Relative Accu- racy Measures for Stroke Gestures. InProceedings of the 15th ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction(Sydney, Australia)(ICMI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 279–286. doi:10.1145/2522848.2522875

    work page doi:10.1145/2522848.2522875 2013

Showing first 80 references.