Development of Three Versions of a Wheelchair Ergometer for Curvilinear Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Using Virtual Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although wheelchair ergometers provide a safe and controlled environment for studying or training wheelchair users, until recently they had a major disadvantage in only being capable of simulating straight-line wheelchair propulsion. Virtual reality has helped overcome this problem and broaden the usability of wheelchair ergometers. However, for a wheelchair ergometer to be validly used in research studies, it needs to be able to simulate the biomechanics of real world wheelchair propulsion. In this paper, three versions of a wheelchair simulator were developed. They provide a sophisticated wheelchair ergometer in an immersive virtual reality environment. They are intended for manual wheelchair propulsion and all are able to simulate simple translational inertia. In addition, each of the systems reported uses a different approach to simulate wheelchair rotation and accommodate rotational inertial effects. The first system does not provide extra resistance against rotation and relies on merely linear inertia, hypothesizing that it can provide acceptable replication of biomechanics of wheelchair maneuvers. The second and third systems, however, are designed to simulate rotational inertia. System II uses mechanical compensation, and System III uses visual compensation simulating the influence that rotational inertia has on the visual perception of wheelchair movement in response to rotation at different speeds.
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".