Investigating the Effects of Intensity and Frequency on Vibrotactile Spatial Acuity
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
Vibrotactile devices are commonly used in applications for sensory substitution or to provide feedback in virtual reality. An important aspect of vibrotactile perception is spatial acuity, which determines the resolutions of vibrotactile displays on the skin. However, the complex vibration characteristics of vibrotactile actuators make it challenging for researchers to reference and compare previous study results. This is because the effects of typical characteristics, such as intensity and frequency, are not well understood. In this study, we investigated the effects of intensity and frequency on vibrotactile spatial acuity. Using Linear Resonant Actuators (LRAs), we conducted relative point localization experiments to measure spatial acuity under different conditions. In the first experiment, we found that intensity had a significant effect on spatial acuity, with higher intensity leading to better acuity. In the second experiment, using a carefully designed intensity calibration procedure, we did not find a significant effect of frequency on spatial acuity. These findings provide a better understanding of vibrotactile spatial acuity, allow for comparisons to previous research, and provide insights into the design of future tactile devices.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it