Assessment of Environmental Effects on Collaborative Haptic Guidance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the effect of environmental factors on user performance in a dual-user haptic guidance system. The system under study allows for interaction between both users, the trainee and the trainer, to collaboratively perform a common task in a shared virtual environment. User studies are carried out to experimentally evaluate the users' performance while following square and circular trajectories with two viewpoints of the environment (top view and front view), while the virtual manipulator tool moves in free motion or against forbidden-region virtual fixtures. The performance is measured and statistically evaluated against task completion time, tracking accuracy, and user energy exchange. The studies revealed that changing the environment geometry from a square to a circle results in reduced task completion time and tracking error. Changing the environment viewpoint from top to front decreases the task completion time in both geometries. Forbidden-region virtual fixtures increase energy exchange by both users and decrease task completion time while compromising the tracking performance in the square-following task. However, when visual feedback is removed in the presence of the fixtures, the square tracking performance improves. The results also indicate a strong relationship between user dominance and tracking error only when the experiment is time-limited.
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.
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 it