MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901241688 · doi:10.1177/2055668318793587

Wearable strain gauge-based technology measures manual tactile forces during the activities of daily living

2018· article· en· W2901241688 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Riddle, Kevin MacDermid-Watts, Sara Frances Holland, Joy C. MacDermid, Emily Lalone, Louis M. Ferreira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersArthritis Society
KeywordsStrain gaugeWearable computerActivities of daily livingContact forceDynamometerSimulationGRASPGauge (firearms)Tactile sensorComputer scienceEngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringMedicinePhysical therapyPhysicsRobotEmbedded systemMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Current methods of determining applied forces in the hand rely on grip dynamometers or force-measurement gloves which are limited in their ability to isolate individual finger forces and interfere with the sense of touch. The objective of this study was to develop an improved force measurement system that could be used during various activities of daily living. METHODS: Custom-made strain gauge sensors were secured to the fingernail of four fingers and two middle phalanges and calibrated to measure hand forces in eight healthy individuals during five activities of daily living. RESULTS: These sensors were capable of measuring forces as small as 0.17 N and did not saturate at high force tasks around 15 N, which is within the envelope of forces experienced during daily life. Preliminary data demonstrate the ability of these tactile sensors to reliably distinguish which fingers/segments were used in various tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Until now, there has been no method for real-time unobtrusive monitoring of force exposure during the tasks of daily life. The system used in this study provides a new type of low-cost wearable technology to monitor forces in the hands without interfering with the contact surface of the hand.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207