An Evaluation of a Vibro-Tactile Display Prototype for Physiological Monitoring
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
In Brief Visual displays and auditory alarms are used to convey information on physiological variables in an operating room. However, the exponential growth in the number of physiological variables and the high probability of false alarms has amplified demands on the clinician’s attention. We have extended existing tactile technology to improve situational awareness and produce a practical clinical advisory device. A vibro-tactile display, using two vibrating motors applied to the volar surface of the forearm, was compared to an auditory alarm in a simulated clinical environment. Compared with auditory alarms, the vibro-tactile alarm was as easy to learn and had a better identification rate when used alone or combined with the auditory alarm. Most users preferred the vibro-tactile alarm although the prototype caused some discomfort. Furthermore, a combined vibro-tactile and auditory alarm had reduced accuracy when compared with the vibro-tactile alarm alone. The vibro-tactile modality shows considerable promise for clinical practice but will require further clinical testing and refinement, especially with regard to user comfort. IMPLICATIONS: The cognitive ability of the clinician has been overloaded by the exponential growth of physiological monitoring devices and a large percentage of false alarms in an operating room. This study investigated the possibility of using a vibro-tactile display to replace visual and audio alarms for conveying physiological information.
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 | 0.001 | 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