A Data Glove with Tactile Feedback for fMRI of Virtual Reality Experiments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) technology is increasingly recognized as a useful tool for the assessment and rehabilitation of neurologic and psychiatric disorders. The hope that VR can accurately mimic real-life events is also of great interest in basic neuroscience, to identify the brain activity that underlies complex behavior by combining VR with techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Toward these applications, in this study we designed and validated an fMRI-compatible data glove with a built-in vibratory stimulus device for tactile feedback during VR experiments. A simple VR-fMRI experiment was performed at 3.0 Tesla on four young healthy adults involving touching a virtual object with and without tactile feedback. The usefulness of the data glove was subsequently assessed using a series of questionnaires, behavioral performance, and the resulting activation images. Questionnaire scores indicated positive opinions with respect to the data glove, the tactile feedback, and the experimental paradigm. All subjects felt comfortable in the scanner during the VR experiment and were able to perform all aspects of the tasks successfully and with reasonable accuracy. In addition, activation maps showed the anticipated modulations in motor, somatosensory, and parietal cortex. These results support that tactile feedback enhances the realism of virtual hand-object interactions, and that the tactile data glove is suitable for use in other VR-fMRI research applications (e.g., VR physical therapy for stroke recovery).
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it