MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159709716 · doi:10.1109/haptic.2012.6183776

Conductive fur sensing for a gesture-aware furry robot

2012· article· en· W2159709716 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Flagg, Diane Tam, Karon E. MacLean, Robert F. Flagg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestureComputer scienceGesture recognitionHuman–computer interactionRobotSet (abstract data type)Context (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceMotion (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in artificial intelligence suggest that machines will soon be capable of communicating in ways previously considered out of their reach. For example, humans engage in sophisticated emotional communication through the language of touch. What technical capabilities would enable computers to do the same? As our group examines this question in the context of emotional touch between a person and a furry social robot, we require sensors designed to detect and recognize subtle, nuanced touches. To this end, we demonstrate a new type of sensor based on conductive fur, which is sensitive to movements unavailable to conventional pressure sensors. The sensor captures motion by measuring changing current as the fur's conductive threads connect and disconnect during touch interaction. We then use machine learning to classify gestures from this time series. An informal evaluation with seven participants found 82% recognition of a 3-gesture set, showing promise for this approach to gesture recognition, and opening a path to emotionally intelligent touch sensing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207