Validating the Performance of Haptic Motor Skill Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of haptic interfaces on motor skill training has been widely studied. However, relatively little is known about whether haptic training can promote long-term motor skill acquisition. In this paper, we report two experimental studies that investigated the effectiveness of visuohaptic (visual + haptic) interfaces in helping people develop short-term and long-term motor skills. Our first study compared training outcomes of visuohaptic training, visual training, and no-assistance training. We found that the training outcomes for the tested methods were similar when helping participants develop short-term motor skills. Our second experiment assessed the potential of visual training and visuohaptic training in promoting the development of long-term motor skills. Participants were trained during a four-day-long period. The results showed that the participants gained long-term skills through both training methods, and that the training outcomes for both methods were similar. The results also showed that visuohaptic training is a promising method, but that it needs to be further developed to be useful.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".