Improving User Performance in Haptics-Based Rehabilitation Exercises by Colocation of User's Visual and Motor Axes via a Three-Dimensional Augmented-Reality Display
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serious games are recently becoming a common sight in rehabilitation settings to provide motivation for patients undergoing therapy to regain upper limb function after disability. These are often presented using a two-dimensional (2-D) monitor to the patient who uses a robotic device (haptic user interface) as the game controller. In this letter, we develop a 3-D spatial augmented reality (AR) display to colocate visual and haptic feedback to the user in three rehabilitative games. The same games are also displayed in a 2-D nonimmersive virtual reality (VR) and are compared against their AR counterpart in terms of user task performance to evaluate the benefit of the 3-D AR system. To simulate a rehabilitation scenario, able-bodied participants are put under cognitive load (CL) for simulating disability-induced cognitive deficiencies when performing the tasks. A within-subjects analysis of ten participants was carried out for the rehabilitative games. The results show that AR leads to the best user performance with or without cognitive loading. This result is most evident in dynamic exercises where the participants are required to have quick reaction times and fast movement. Furthermore, even while AR had a significant difference over VR, one of the tasks showed that the performance in AR between non-CL and CL cases was similar, thereby showing how AR can alleviate the negative effects of CL.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it