Adding Haptic Feedback to Virtual Environments With a Cable-Driven Robot Improves Upper Limb Spatio-Temporal Parameters During a Manual Handling Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical interactions within virtual environments are often limited to visual information within a restricted workspace. A new system exploiting a cable-driven parallel robot to combine visual and haptic information related to environmental physical constraints (e.g. shelving, object weight) was developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on user movement patterns of adding haptic feedback in a virtual environment with this robot. Twelve healthy participants executed a manual handling task under three conditions: 1) in a virtual environment with haptic feedback; 2) in a virtual environment without haptic feedback; 3) in a real physical environment. Temporal parameters (movement time, peak velocity, movement smoothness, time to maximum flexion, time to peak wrist velocity) and spatial parameters of movement (maximum trunk flexion, range of motion of the trunk, length of the trajectory, index of curvature and maximum clearance from the shelf) were analysed during the reaching, lowering and lifting phases. Our results suggest that adding haptic feedback improves spatial parameters of movement to better respect the environmental constraints. However, the visual information presented in the virtual environment through the head mounted display appears to have an impact on temporal parameters of movement leading to greater movement time. Taken together, our results suggest that a cable-driven robot can be a promising device to provide a more ecological context during complex tasks in virtual reality.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".