“A Chance to Try”: Exploring the Clinical Utility of Shared-Control Teleoperation for Powered Wheelchair Assessment and Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Powered wheelchairs provide independence for people with mobility impairments; however, current training practices may not meet the needs of those with cognitive impairments. Shared-control teleoperation may have utility in a clinical setting when developing training suited to this population. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical utility of a shared-control teleoperation device for powered wheelchair assessment and training. DESIGN: In this qualitative study, we used two sequential semistructured interviews conducted a minimum of 2 wk apart. Thematic analyses were used with member checking, reflexive journaling, and triangulation of researchers to establish trustworthiness of the data. SETTING: Rehabilitation center and residential care and community settings. PARTICIPANTS: Using purposive sampling, we recruited occupational therapists and physical therapists who were mostly female and who had a range of practice experience. RESULTS: Fifteen participants were interviewed, and two primary themes were identified: (1) "A big enabler" described how shared control provides opportunities to train people who may otherwise be denied powered mobility, and (2) "changing the learner experience" described how shared control may promote success in skill development through an alternative learning experience. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Shared-control technology may have the potential to broaden the scope of therapeutic intervention by reducing risk to the driver and others in the environment and by facilitating alternative training approaches. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: Technological advances that allow more control over a powered wheelchair by a clinician, known as shared control, may provide learning opportunities for people who are otherwise denied access to powered mobility. Shared control may also allow the use of new instructional techniques, increase safety in the training process, and reduce anxiety associated with learning.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".