Evaluation of the usability of an actively actuated arm support
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
Dynamic arm supports can be used to increase the autonomy of people with upper limb disabilities, but their usability is often poorly documented. The objective of this study is to evaluate the usability of an actuated arm support (AAS), namely the Gowing power-assisted arm support. Nine participants with neurological disorders restricting their upper limb capacities (DASH = 63.51 ± 7.72) completed various tasks (Upper Extremity Performance Test for the Elderly (TEMPA)) with and without the AAS. Users’ satisfaction (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST)) and perceived benefits of the device (semi-structured interviews) were assessed. Large (effect size ≥ 1.15) and statistically significant (p < .05) improvements were found in the TEMPA functional rating, range of motion, strength, precision of gross movements and prehension patterns subscales while using the AAS. Two third of the participants were quite or very satisfied with the arm support (QUEST > 4/5) and interviews were positive about its usefulness in daily living activities. Our study demonstrated that the use of an AAS could result in significant improvements in the autonomy of people with upper limb disabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it