A pilot study on simulating continuous sensation with two vibrating motors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a pilot study to present a continuous touch sensation with low-resolution array of a vibrotactile device on human skin using funneling illusion. The funneling illusion occurs when two loud stimuli presented simultaneously to adjacent locations on the skin, and they are funneled to form a sensation between the two stimulators rather than felt separately. This sensation is affected by the separation of the stimuli, their relative amplitudes, and their temporal order. In this paper, the continuous touch sensation is simulated by changing the perceived intensities of two adjacent vibrating motors continuously on the skin. First of all, we obtain the relationship between the control intensity that affects Pulse-Width Modulation (PWM) duration to actuate the vibrating motors and the perceived intensity of the sensation. Then, the continuous sensation is examined with two control conditions of the distance between two stimuli and the velocity of the simulated moving sensation for feasibility check. The results show that the continuously moving sensations can be presented by changing the perceived intensities of two vibrating motors opposite way in the condition of around 60 mm distance and 60 mm/s velocity.
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".