Development system for a haptic interface based on impedance/admittance control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two fundamental and dominant control methods widely used in haptic controller design. First, is impedance control when user motion input is measured and the reaction force is fed back to user. The alternative method is admittance control, when forces exerted by user are measured and positions are fed back to user. Both, impedance and admittance control are also fundamental ways for interacting with a virtual environment. In This work, impedance control is investigated experimentally from the viewpoint of suitability for haptic interface development. The difference between conventional application of impedance control in robot motion control and its application in haptic interface development is investigated. Open loop impedance control methodology is implemented for static case and a general-purpose robot under open loop impedance control was developed as a haptic device, while a closed loop model based impedance control was used for haptic controller design in both static and dynamic case. The factors that could affect to the performance of a haptic interface are also investigated experimentally using parametric studies. The investigation is carried out on a HIL experimental setup and is verified that the HIL experimental set up can be used as a generic platform for the development and for testing haptic interface options before prototypes are built. Experimental results for 1 DOF rotational motion and 2 DOF planar translational motion systems are presented.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".