Continuous tactile perception for vibrotactile displays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, the digital community has strongly allied with rich sensory human computer interfaces (HCIs) to better understand how people interact via their sense of touch. In this research, we leverage knowledge of the perception and psychophysics of haptics to better understand the human tactile sensory system and develop perceptual tactile displays. We utilize a human sensory illusion called the ¿funneling illusion¿ to display a dynamic tactile sensation, such as a slow and smooth, continuous sensation on the human skin, with discrete actuators. After obtaining the illusion of a continuous movement of one tactile stimulus, we examine the quality of the continuous movement according to the effects of temporal intensity changes of vibrotactile actuators in a linear and logarithmic pattern; location of the continuous movement on the dorsal of the human forearm and upper arm; orientation of the continuous movement with respect to the axis of the limb; duration of sensory excitation; and gender. Psychophysical experiments have revealed correlations between the orientation, duration of the vibrotactile actuators and gender with the preferred intensity variation, substantiating our research direction.
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) | 0.001 | 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".