MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1467916587

Haptic Assistance to Improve Computer Access for Motion-impaired Users

2001· article· en· W1467916587 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Faustina Hwang, Patrick Langdon, Simeon Keates, P. John Clarkson

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Output (Edinburgh Napier University) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCambridge Trust
KeywordsHaptic technologyCursor (databases)Computer sciencePath (computing)Human–computer interactionSimulationMotion (physics)Artificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a pilot experiment which examines the effectiveness of using force-feedback technology to assist motion-impaired computer users in target selection tasks. Two measures to evaluate the effectiveness of forcefeedback assistance are proposed. The radius of curvature of the cursor path and the cursor speed along the path can capture differences in cursor movements that might be lost in a single measure such as time to target. Experimental results indicate that force-feedback implemented as nondirectional viscous damping has a beneficial effect for some, improving times to target by up to 50%. Future work includes developing other forms of haptic assistance, developing new measures for evaluation, and investigating the implications of kinaesthesic impairment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Output (Edinburgh Napier University)Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207