MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966454224 · doi:10.1109/icorr.2019.8779391

Supporting Play by Applying Haptic Guidance Along a Surface Learnt from Single Motion Trajectories

2019· article· en· W2966454224 on OpenAlexafffund
Javier L. Castellanos-Cruz, Mahdi Tavakoli, Patrick M. Pilarski, Kim Adams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHaptic technologyTeleoperationTrajectoryMotion (physics)Computer scienceHuman–computer interactionRobotSimulationArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haptic-enabled teleoperated robots can help children with physical disabilities to reach toys by applying haptic guidance towards their toys, thus compensating for their limitations in reaching and manipulating objects. In this article we preliminarily tested a learning from demonstration (LfD) approach, where a robotic system learnt the surface that best approximated to all motion trajectories demonstrated by the participants while playing a whack-a-mole game. The end-goal of the system is for therapists or parents to demonstrate to it how to play a game, and then be used by children with physical disabilities. In this study, four adults without disabilities participated, to identify aspects that will be necessary to improve before conducting trials with children. During the demonstration phase, participants played the game in normal teleoperation, assuming the role of the therapist/parent. Then, the surface was modeled using a neural network. Participants played the game without and with the haptic guidance. The movements of the robotic system were mirrored to induce errors in movements, and thus require the guidance. Participants spent more time, moved the robot longer distances, and had jerkier movements when they played the game with the guidance than without it. Possible reasons were discussed, and several solutions were proposed to improve the system. The main contribution of this paper was the learning of a surface instead of learning a single motion trajectory.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207