| Literature DB >> 35860636 |
Hongyue Wang1,2, Zhiquan Feng1,2, Jinglan Tian1,2, Xue Fan1,2.
Abstract
At present, virtual-reality fusion smart experiments mostly employ visual perception devices to collect user behavior data, but this method faces the obstacles of distance, angle, occlusion, light, and a variety of other factors of indoor interactive input devices. Moreover, the essence of the traditional multimodal fusion algorithm (TMFA) is to analyze the user's experimental intent serially using single-mode information, which cannot fully utilize the intent information of each mode. Therefore, this paper designs a multimodal fusion algorithm (hereinafter referred to as MFA, Algorithm 4) which focuses on the parallel fusion of user's experimental intent. The essence of the MFA is the fusion of multimodal intent probability. At the same time, this paper designs a smart glove based on the virtual-reality fusion experiments, which can integrate multichannel data such as voice, visual, and sensor. This smart glove can not only capture user's experimental intent but also navigate, guide, or warn user's operation behaviors, and it has stronger perception capabilities compared to any other data glove or smart experimental device. The experimental results demonstrate that the smart glove presented in this paper can be widely employed in the chemical experiment teaching based on virtual-reality fusion.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35860636 PMCID: PMC9293496 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3545850
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1A physical prototype of the smart glove.
Figure 2The three-dimensional position of the glove comparison picture (far and near position).
Figure 3Comparison between traditional AR chemistry laboratory and MR chemistry laboratory.
Figure 4The overall framework of smart glove system based on multimodal fusion.
Figure 5Task slot.
Figure 6System speech library.
Experiment library under voice channel, visual channel, and sensor channel.
| Intent | System speech library task slot | Corresponding recognition object | Corresponding recognition action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| [Pick up, distilled water] | Beaker with water | Pick up |
|
| [Pour, distilled water] | Beaker with water | Pour |
|
| [Check, air tightness] | Hot towel | Grasp |
|
| [Pick up, clarified lime aqueous] | Wide mouth bottle with clarified lime water | Pick up |
|
| [Pour, clarified lime aqueous] | Wide mouth bottle with clarified lime water | Pour |
|
| [Pick up, spoon] | Medicine spoon | Pinch |
|
| [Take out, charcoal powder] | Fine mouth bottle with charcoal powder | Pinch |
|
| [Add, charcoal powder] | Fine mouth bottle with charcoal powder | Pinch |
|
| [Take out, iron oxide powder] | Fine mouth bottle with iron oxide powder | Pinch |
|
| [Add, iron oxide powder] | Fine mouth bottle with iron oxide powder | Pinch |
|
| [Turn on, alcohol burner] | — | Poke |
Figure 7Multimodal output module.
Figure 8(a) A diagram of the user wearing a smart glove to pour distilled water. (b) A diagram of the user picking up a hot towel for gas tightness test. (c) A diagram of the user removing the iron oxide powder after the grains follow the movement of the tip of the spoon. (d) A diagram of the experimental phenomenon after the user ignites the alcoholic blowtorch.
Relevant instructions and irrelevant instructions.
| Relevant instructions | Irrelevantinstructions | |
|---|---|---|
| Total times | 110 | 110 |
| Effective times | 107 | 0 |
| Recognition accuracy | 97.27% | 0% |
Figure 9Diagram of the occlusion problem.
Figure 10Key step recognition accuracy.
Comparison of three methods.
| Intent name | Voice channel | Dual-mode fusion | Multimodal fusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average completion rate | 97.5% | 88.75% | 95% |
| Average completion time | 71 | 274 | 201 |
| User satisfaction | 3.9 | 6.05 | 8.9 |
Figure 11Comparison between MFA and TMFA.
Figure 12NASA user evaluation.