Vibrotactile Feedback for Human Balance Improvement: Experimental Investigation of Optimal Feedback Location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis characterizes the use of vibrotactile feedback and evaluates the effect of feedback location on human balance via three main experiments.The first experiment characterizes common tactor types and compares their performance based on participants' perception.The better performing tactor is used in the second experiment, which investigates the optimal body location for feedback through participants' performance in sensing tactor array feedback.This study compares neck, waist, wrist, and ankle feedback weighted scores of reaction time, ability to detect feedback, and ability to discern the activated tactor and its vibration intensity.The best-performing locations, wrist and ankle, are used in the third study to show vibrotactile feedbacks positive effect on participants' balance and to identify the optimal body location for feedback.Feedback, independent of location, significantly improved percentage time spent in the deadzone, and in some tests also significantly improved AP and ML trunk tilt.iiiFirst and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Professor Mojtaba Ahmadi, for his overwhelming support and for always taking the time to discuss matters at hand without making meetings feel rushed, even though he was incredibly busy.But mostly, I want to thank him for enabling me to further my knowledge more than I would have thought possible in two years.I would also like to thank my co-supervisor, Dr. Allen Huang, for being so invested in this project that he drove to Carleton for 8 am meetings and took the time to read my thesis, even while traveling.I feel very fortunate to have had the chance to work with him and learn more about the physician's point of view on assistive devices.I am also very appreciative of my colleagues in the ABL lab and the good discussions we had; some of those conversations often turned a bad day into a great one.A special thanks to Stephanie Eng for her involvement in the first phase of this work and to Omar Masaud for teaching me most of what I know about circuit design.Finally, my deep and sincere gratitude to my family for their continuous love, help and support.I am
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".