MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530728530 · doi:10.1177/2055668316668147

Haptics to improve task performance in people with disabilities: A review of previous studies and a guide to future research with children with disabilities

2016· review· en· W2530728530 on OpenAlexaff
Nooshin Jafari, Kim Adams, Mahdi Tavakoli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)PsychologyHaptic technologyCognitive psychologyHuman–computer interactionDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceEngineeringSimulationSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review examines the studies most pertinent to the potential of haptics on the functionality of assistive robots in manipulation tasks for use by children with disabilities. Haptics is the fast-emerging science that studies the sense of touch concerning the interaction of a human and his/her environment; this paper particularly studies the human-machine interaction that happens through a haptic interface to enable touch feedback. Haptics-enabled user interfaces for assistive robots can potentially benefit children whose haptic exploration is impaired due to a disability in their infancy and throughout their childhood. A haptic interface can provide touch feedback and potentially contribute to an enhancement in perception of objects and overall ability to perform manipulation tasks. The intention of this paper is to review the research on the applications of haptics, exclusively focusing on attributes affecting task performance. A review of studies will give a retrospective insight into previous research with various disability populations, and inform potential limitations/challenges in research regarding haptic interfaces for assistive robots for use by children with disabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies EngineeringSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207