The Impact of Simultaneously Applying Normal Stress and Vibrotactile Stimulation for Feedback of Exteroceptive Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercially available prosthetic hands do not convey any tactile information, forcing amputees to rely solely on visual attention. A promising solution to this problem is haptics, which could lead to new prostheses in which tactile information is conveyed between the amputee and the artificial limb. However, the haptic feedback must be optimized so that amputees can use it effectively; and although several studies have examined how specific haptic feedback systems can transmit certain types of tactile information, there has not yet been much research on the effects of superposing two or more types of feedback at the same location, which might prove to be more effective than using a single type of feedback alone. This paper investigates how the simultaneous application of two different types of haptic feedback-vibration and normal stress-impacts the human sensory perception of each separate feedback type. These stimuli were applied to glabrous skin on the forearms of 14 participants. Our experiments tested whether participants experienced more accurate sensory perception, compared to vibration or normal stress alone, when vibration was applied at the same time as the normal stress, at either the same location, or at a different location 6 cm away. Results indicate that although participants' perception of the normal stress diminished when vibration was applied at the same location, the same combination improved their perception of the vibration. Apparently, vibration has a negative impact upon the ability to perceive normal stress, whether applied at the same or a different location; whereas the opposite is true for the effect of normal stress upon the perception of vibration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".