Toward open-source portable haptic displays with visual-force-tactile feedback colocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platforms capable of generating rich haptic feedback are usually quite expensive and under strict proprietary protection. In addition, most of them are not portable and do not deliver a fully integrated force, tactile and visual user experience. In an attempt to break through these limitations, we have created the Haplet: an open-source, portable and affordable haptic device with colocated visual, force and tactile feedback. The triple colocated user experience is delivered by a small-form parallel robotic mechanism that features a simple vibrotactile actuator at the end-effector. The robotic arm is optically transparent and is motorized at the base where it clips on a tablet or computer screen. All the electronic components are encapsulated into a custom designed board based on the Arduino Due microcontroller. This board interfaces computer software to the Haplet's hardware with a capacity of up to four motors and encoders and two vibrotactile actuators. This paper describes our ongoing research on developing the Haplet; and, reports our initial experimental studies on quantifying the effect of visual-force-tactile feedback colocation on the user's experience and performance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".