You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Touchless computer interfaces in hospitals: A review 
Chapter Title:  Multi-cue: a combination of the previous approaches 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  The use of doctor-computer interaction devices in the operation room (OR) requires new modalities that support medical imaging manipulation while allowing doctors' hands to remain sterile, supporting their focus of attention, and providing fast response times. This paper presents "Gestix," a vision-based hand gesture capture and recognition system that interprets in real-time the user's gestures for navigation and manipulation of images in an electronic medical record (EMR) database. Navigation and other gestures are translated to commands based on their temporal trajectories, through video capture. "Gestix" was tested during a brain biopsy procedure. In the in vivo experiment, this interface prevented the surgeon's focus shift and change of location while achieving a rapid intuitive reaction and easy interaction. Data from two usability tests provide insights and implications regarding human-computer interaction based on nonverbal conversational modalities. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  In this paper, an open-source system for a controller-free, highly interactive exploration of medical images is presented. By using a Microsoft Xbox Kinect™ as the only input device, the system's user interface allows users to interact at a distance through hand and arm gestures. The paper also details the interaction techniques we have designed specifically for the deviceless exploration of medical imaging data. Since the user interface is touch-free and does not require complex calibration steps, it is suitable for use in operating rooms, where non-sterilizable devices cannot be used. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  Review of prior and real-time patient images is critical during an interventional radiology procedure; however, it often poses the challenge of efficiently reviewing images while maintaining a sterile field. Although interventional radiologists can "scrub out" of the procedure, use sterile console covers, or verbally relay directions to an assistant, the ability of the interventionalist to directly control the images without having to touch the console could offer potential gains in terms of sterility, procedure efficiency, and radiation reduction. The authors investigated a potential solution with a low-cost, touch-free motion-tracking device that was originally designed as a video game controller. The device tracks a person's skeletal frame and its motions, a capacity that was adapted to allow manipulation of medical images by means of hand gestures. A custom software program called the Touchless Radiology Imaging Control System translates motion information obtained with the motion-tracking device into commands to review images on a workstation. To evaluate this system, 29 radiologists at the authors' institution were asked to perform a set of standardized tasks during a routine abdominal computed tomographic study. Participants evaluated the device for its efficacy as well as its possible advantages and disadvantages. The majority (69%) of those surveyed believed that the device could be useful in an interventional radiology practice and did not foresee problems with maintaining a sterile field. This proof-of-concept prototype and study demonstrate the potential utility of the motion-tracking device for enhancing imaging-guided treatment in the interventional radiology suite while maintaining a sterile field. Supplemental material available at http://radiographics.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/rg.332125101/-/DC1. 
4. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB004):  Background ::: Current surgical robots are controlled by a mechanical master located away from the patient, tracking surgeon’s hands by wire and pulleys or mechanical linkage. Contactless hand tracking for surgical robot control is an attractive alternative, because it can be executed with minimal footprint at the patient’s bedside without impairing sterility, while eliminating current disassociation between surgeon and patient. We compared technical and technologic feasibility of contactless hand tracking to the current clinical standard master controllers. 
5. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB005):  We adapted and evaluated the Microsoft Kinect (touchless interface), Hillcrest Labs Loop Pointer (gyroscopic mouse), and the Apple iPad (multi-touch tablet) for intra-procedural imaging review efficacy in a simulation using MIM Software DICOM viewers. Using each device, 29 radiologists executed five basic interactions to complete the overall task of measuring an 8.1-cm hepatic lesion: scroll, window, zoom, pan, and measure. For each interaction, participants assessed the devices on a 3-point subjective scale (3 = highest usability score). The five individual scores were summed to calculate a subjective composite usability score (max 15 points). Overall task time to completion was recorded. Each user also assessed each device for its potential to jeopardize a sterile field. The composite usability scores were as follows: Kinect 9.9 (out of 15.0; SD = 2.8), Loop Pointer 12.9 (SD = 13.5), and iPad 13.5 (SD = 1.8). Mean task completion times were as follows: Kinect 156.7 s (SD = 86.5), Loop Pointer 51.5 s (SD = 30.6), and iPad 41.1 s (SD = 25.3). The mean hepatic lesion measurements were as follows: Kinect was 7.3 cm (SD = 0.9), Loop Pointer 7.8 cm (SD = 1.1), and iPad 8.2 cm (SD = 1.2). The mean deviations from true hepatic lesion measurement were as follows: Kinect 1.0 cm and for both the Loop Pointer and iPad, 0.9 cm (SD = 0.7). The Kinect had the least and iPad had the most subjective concern for compromising the sterile field. A new intra-operative imaging review interface may be near. Most surveyed foresee these devices as useful in procedures, and most do not anticipate problems with a sterile field. An ideal device would combine iPad’s usability and accuracy with the Kinect’s touchless aspect. 
6. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB006):  Real-time control of visual display systems via mid-air hand gestures offers many advantages over traditional interaction modalities. In medicine, for example, it allows a practitioner to adjust display values, e.g. contrast or zoom, on a medical visualization interface without the need to re-sterilize the interface. However, when users are holding a small tool (such as a pen, surgical needle, or computer stylus) the need to constantly put the tool down in order to make hand gesture interactions is not ideal. This work presents a novel interface that automatically adjusts for gesturing with hands and hand-held tools to precisely control medical displays. The novelty of our interface is that it uses a single set of gestures designed to be equally effective for fingers and hand-held tools without using markers. This type of interface was previously not feasible with low-resolution depth sensors such as Kinect, but is now achieved by using the recently released Leap Motion controller. Our interface is validated through a user study on a group of people given the task of adjusting parameters on a medical image.

Literature Review:
Conventional interfaces via gesture or native gestural interfaces. Several papers have tried to apply gestures directly to conventional means of interacting with a computer, BIB001 for example, Rosa and Elizondo 24 implemented a virtual touch-pad in mid-air. However, adhering to existing control design paradigms such as mouse and keyboard control design has been found to be a drawback. BIB004 Others have created complete gesture sets with purely gestural control in mind.  BIB003 BIB006 Designing the system with gestures in mind from the very start would also help to reduce the issues associated with adhering to existing mouse and keyboard control design according to Tan et al. BIB004 Other systems have used gesture modalities to provide more direct control within medical procedures, such as FAce MOUSe where a surgeon can control the direction of a laparoscope simply by making the appropriate facial gesture. BIB002 Gesture set. Choosing the appropriate gesture set is key in system design, and hardware characteristics of input device and the application domain must be considered. BIB003 There have been a large number of gestures described in the literature, some more common than others. Table 4 classifies the gestures encountered into system control, content control and input, with content control being the largest category. Despite the extent of this list of gestures, O'Hara et al.  state that limiting the number of gestures benefits ease of use, as well as learnability. Furthermore, limiting the gesture set can enhance reliability and avoid 'gesture bleed' (where gestures containing similar movements are mistaken for each other by the system). O'Hara et al. 14 talk about expressive richness as 'how to map an increasingly larger set of functional possibilities coherently onto a reliably distinctive gesture vocabulary', as well as how to approach transitioning between gestures. Rossol et al. BIB007 designed an interface with the purpose of using gestures designed to be equally efficient to use with bare hands or hand-held tools. In order to minimise cognitive load, their system used a vocabulary of three gestures for finger -or tool -tips, and one gesture for hands. Furthermore, they implemented a means of performing highly precise adjustments by means of tapping gestures on one hand while using the closer hand for parameter adjustment. BIB007 In terms of fine detail performance, depth cameras can now track fine motions of hands and fingers. BIB005 Tan et al. BIB004 flagged issues with hand tracking and inconsistent responsiveness as issues, along with their stylistic choice of requiring two hands for gestures. Wachs et al.  discussed the issue of lexicon size and multi-hand systems where the challenge is to detect and recognise as many hands as possible. Wachs et al.  flagged system intuitiveness as an issue, that is, there is no consensus among users as to what command a gesture is associated with. Dealing with differences in gestures between individuals is a considerable challenge. BIB003 Regarding system reconfigurability, Wachs et al.  stated that there are many different types of users; location, anthropometric characteristics and types and numbers of gestures vary. Adjustment of continuous parameters may also be a possibility in gestural input -O'Hara et al.