Design of Rhythm-Based Vibrotactile Stimuli Around the Waist: Evaluation of Two Encoding Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose two encoding parameters to facilitate the design of a rhythm-based tactile scheme for humans. The sense of touch has been used for many years to aid communication for people with sensory impairments. Now, vibrations are used in mobile phones and handheld computers but are generally very basic and do not fully exploit the potential of vibration as a means of communication. Several studies explored the use of tactile icons combining different parameters such as amplitude modulation, location, and duration. However, the parameter ldquorhythmrdquo has not attracted a lot of attention. Using two parameters (muE, sigmaE) to control the design of tactile-pattern sets, we created four stimulus schemes of 20 patterns each. Using a tactile belt located around the waist, 64 subjects tested them. The amount of static information transferred and response times (RTs) varied among the different designs. The scheme with the best set of encoding parameters (muE=3.sigmaE>0) conveyed 4 b of information or 16 tokens with an RT of 4.3 s.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".