ROV Teleoperation in the Presence of Cross‐Currents Using Soft Haptics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The remote operation of underwater vehicles at depth is complicated by the presence of invisible and unpredictable environmental disturbances such as cross‐currents. Communicating the presence of these disturbances to an operator on the surface is made more difficult by the nature of the disturbances and the lack of visible features to highlight in the visual display presented to the operator. Here we explore the use of a novel interactive soft haptic touchpad that utilizes vibration and particle jamming to provide information about the presence and direction of cross‐currents to the operator of an ROV (remotely operated vehicle). An in‐water experiment using a thruster‐based ROV and artificially generated cross‐current was performed with nonexpert ROV operators to evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal haptic feedback to communicate complex environmental information during high‐risk operations. Advanced haptic displays can signal both the presence of external factors as well as their direction, information that can enhance operational performance as well as reduce operator cognitive load. Using haptic feedback resulted in a statistically significant reduction in cognitive load of 24.3% and an increase in positioning accuracy of 28.3% for novice operators. Deviation from an ideal path was also reduced by 29.5% for experienced operators when using haptic feedback compared to without. While this experiment took place in controlled conditions with a fixed direction cross‐current and haptic interface, this approach could be extended to communicate real‐time environmental information in real‐world unstructured environments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".