MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087875883 · doi:10.5555/1363163.1363176

Active manipulation of users in haptic-enabled virtual environments

2008· article· en· W2087875883 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrdad Zadeh, David Wang, Eric Kubica

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyComputer scienceTask (project management)Virtual realitySimulationModalHuman–computer interactionPosition (finance)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main goal of this research is to study the effect of sub-threshold forces on human performance in a haptic-enabled virtual reality system. A multi-modal task similar to Fitts is used to study the effects of the sub-threshold forces on user performance. Each user’s movement is manipulated using controlled forces such that the user is not aware of the forces. Subjects can see the position of the haptic probe in a virtual environment where they are manipulated using sub-threshold forces. The multi-modal task is used to mea-sure the accuracy of subjects in two experiments. During the experiments, the effects of force intensity and the rel-ative direction of applied forces to the direction of user’s hand motion in the presence of visual cues are investigated. A performance index is also introduced that can be used to evaluate human performance in the application of sub-threshold forces. A psychophysical method is utilized to ensure that the applied forces on the user’s hand are below the force threshold of the human haptic system. Results indicate that user performance is affected by both the in-tensity and direction of sub-threshold forces even when the users could control their actions through visual feedbacks.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207