MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025420702 · doi:10.3109/17483107.2011.629330

Evaluation of an ambient noise insensitive hum-based powered wheelchair controller

2011· article· en· W2025420702 on OpenAlexaff
Tiago H. Falk, A. W. Andrews, Fanny Hotzé, Eric A. Wan, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumWheelchairNoise (video)Controller (irrigation)Ambient noise levelComputer scienceAcousticsAutomotive engineeringEngineeringPhysicsBiologySound (geography)ArtArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: A recently-developed assistive technology nicknamed "the Hummer" was investigated as a potential powered wheelchair controller for individuals with severe and multiple disabilities. System performance in a noisy environment was compared to that obtained with a commercial automatic speech recognition (ASR) system. METHOD: A bi-hum driving protocol was developed to allow the Hummer to serve as a powered wheelchair controller. Participants performed several virtual wheelchair driving tasks of increasing difficulty using the two systems. Custom-written software recorded task execution time, number of commands issued and wall collisions, speed, and trajectory. RESULTS: The bi-hum protocol was shown to be non-intuitive and required user training. Overall, the Hummer achieved lower performance relative to ASR. Once users became accustomed to the protocol, the difference in performance between the two systems became insignificant, particularly for the higher-difficulty task. CONCLUSIONS: The Hummer provides a promising new alternative for powered wheelchair control in everyday environments for individuals with severe and multiple disabilities who are able to hum, particularly for those with severe dysarthria which precludes ASR usage. A more intuitive driving protocol is still needed to reduce user frustration and mitigate user-generated errors; recommendations on how this can be achieved are given herein. [Box: see text].

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207