Tactile sensation transmission from a robotic arm to the human body via a haptic interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a robotic system that was used to study the restoration of touch sensitivity. This approach could improve the lives of people who suffer from having lost organs or upper-limbs. Here, a combination of tactile sensors, robotic fingers, and a haptic interface enabled us to undertake different types of experiments on human subjects. To this end, we have conducted two separate tests on eight human subjects in order to assess the effectiveness of the static and dynamic modalities in different detectable ranges of the skin sensitivity. As of now, overall results show the relative functionality of the proposed mechanism for further experimental research. Under a static condition we received better restitution feedback at the lowest and highest magnitude levels, compared to the two in-between levels. The lowest and highest magnitude levels, 2N and 8N respectively, had an overall success rate of 75%, while the two middle levels, 4N and 6N, had a success rate of 43%. Under a dynamic condition, results showed that the whole system could adequately convey texture information via vibrations, and that it allowed subjects to successfully differentiate textures 78.33% of the time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".