MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030000211 · doi:10.1115/detc2013-12374

On the Design of a Portable Force Illusion Device for Navigation Aids

2013· article· en· W2030000211 on OpenAlexaff
Jacobus W. M. Wever, Clément Gosselin, Just L. Herder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionAccelerationReciprocating motionComputer scienceKinematicsFocus (optics)Haptic technologyMechanism (biology)Range (aeronautics)SimulationMechatronicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionEngineeringPhysicsAerospace engineeringBearing (navigation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Navigation aids rely mostly on (audio)visual cues when it comes to communication with the user. An alternative and more intuitive communication modality may be provided by means of haptic guidance generated by a portable mechatronic device. Especially visually impaired and blind people may benefit from a device that generates the illusion of an external force; it may possibly eliminate the need for a guide dog. This paper investigates constant-velocity crank-driven mechanisms which are able to generate such a force illusion by means of a reciprocating mass. The focus of this paper is on the generation of the illusion itself rather than manipulating the direction of this force. The force illusion is a result of successive positive and negative reaction forces with unequal amplitude, generated by a reciprocating mass. The acceleration ratio of the mass is selected as the main evaluation criterion for comparing different types of candidate mechanisms. Because the input is a simple motor rotating at a constant velocity, the synthesis of the mechanism is key to generating proper acceleration profiles. A brute-force approach is used for the synthesis procedure, i.e., characteristic distances and link lengths are varied with steps of 1mm for each of the candidate mechanisms, thereby generating very large numbers of variants. Kinematic performance reveal typical acceleration ratios in the range of 1 to 19; where a ratio of one does not result in a force illusion while a ratio of 19 might be demanding on the physical design. An objective evaluation leads to selecting the Square Recti-Linear mechanism as the overall most promising candidate mechanism. A prototype of this mechanism is then presented to demonstrate the working principle. The shape of the prototype’s force profile over time is measured experimentally and is shown to be very similar to the profile obtained by simulation. The reciprocating mass accounts for almost one fifth of the total mass of the prototype, resulting in a strong force illusion in comparison with gravitational forces.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207