Vibrotactile and Force Collaboration within 3D Virtual Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment (VE), proper collaboration between vibrotactile and force cues - two cues of the haptic modality - is important to facilitate task performance of human users. Many studies report that collaborations between multi-sensory cues follow maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). However, an existing work finds that MLE yields a mean and an amplitude mismatches when interpreting the collaboration between the vibrotactile and force cues. We thus proposed mean-shifted MLE and conducted a human study to investigate the mismatches. For the study, we created a VE to replicate the visual scene, the 3D interactive task, and the cues from the existing work. Our participants were biased to rely on the vibrotactile cue for their tasks, departing from unbiased reliance on both cues in the existing work. Assessments of task completion time and task accuracy validated the replication. We found that based on task accuracy MLE explained the cue collaboration to certain degrees, agreed with the existing work. Mean-shifted MLE remedied the mean mismatch, but maintained the amplitude mismatch. Further examinations revealed that the collaboration between both cues may not be entirely additive. This sheds an insight for proper modeling of the collaboration between the vibrotactile and force cues to aid interactive tasks in VEs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".