Design and Psychophysical Evaluation of a Novel Wearable Upper-Arm Tactile Display Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel wearable upper arm tactile display device, which can simultaneously provide three types of tactile stimuli (i.e., squeezing, stretching, and vibration) is presented. The squeezing and stretching stimulation of the skin is generated by two motors simultaneously driving the nylon belt in the opposite and the same direction, respectively. In addition, four evenly spaced vibration motors are fixed around the user's arm by an elastic nylon band. There is also a unique structural design for assembling the control module and actuator, powered by two lithium batteries, making it portable and wearable. Psychophysical experiments are conducted to investigate the effect of interference on the perception of squeezing and stretching stimulation by this device. Results show that (1) different tactile stimuli actually interfere with the user's perception compared to the case where only one stimulus is applied to the user; (2) the squeezing has a considerable impact on the stretch just noticeable difference (JND) values when both stimuli are exerted on the user, and when the squeezing is strong, while the impact of stretch on the squeezing JND values is negligible.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".