MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752408187

Variability of Handwriting Biomechanics: A Focus on Grip Kinetics during Signature Writing

2014· dissertation· en· W2752408187 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bassma Ghali

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHandwritingSignature (topology)BiomechanicsFocus (optics)Computer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineMathematicsAnatomyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grip kinetics are emerging as an important measure in clinical assessments of handwriting pathologies and fine motor rehabilitation as well as in biometric and forensic applications. The signature verification literature in particular has extensively examined the spatiotemporal, kinematic, and axial pressure characteristics of handwriting, but has minimally considered grip kinetics. Therefore, the focus of this thesis was to investigate the variability of grip kinetics in adults during signature writing. To address this goal, a database of authentic and well-practiced bogus signatures were collected with an instrumented pen that recorded the forces applied to its barrel. Four different analytical studies were conceived. The first study investigated the intra- and inter-participant variability of grip kinetic topography on the pen barrel based on authentic signatures written over 10 days. The main findings were that participants possessed unique grip force topographies even when the same grasp pattern was employed and that participants could be discriminated from each other with an average error rate of 1.2% on the basis of their grip force topographies. The second study examined the stability of different grip kinetic features over an extended period of a few months. The analyses revealed that intra-participant variation was generally much smaller than inter-participant variations even in the long term. In the third study, grip kinetics associated with authentic and well-practiced bogus signatures were compared. Differences in grip kinetic features between authentic and bogus signatures were only observed in a few participants. The kinetics of bogus signatures were not necessarily more variable. The variation of grip kinetic profiles between participants writing the same bogus signature was evaluated in the fourth study and an average error rate of 5.8% was achieved when verifying signatures with kinetic profile-based features. Collectively, the findings of this thesis serve to inform future applications of grip kinetic measures in biometric, clinical and industrial applications.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207