AeroHaptix: A Wearable Vibrotactile Feedback System for Enhancing Collision Avoidance in UAV Teleoperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haptic feedback enhances collision avoidance by providing directional obstacle information to operators during unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) teleoperation. However, such feedback is often rendered via haptic joysticks, which are unfamiliar to UAV operators and limited to single-direction force feedback. Additionally, the direct coupling between the input device and the feedback method diminishes operators' sense of control and induces oscillatory movements. To overcome these limitations, we propose AeroHaptix, a wearable haptic feedback system that uses spatial vibrations to simultaneously communicate multiple obstacle directions to operators, without interfering with their input control. The layout of vibrotactile actuators was optimized via a perceptual study to eliminate perceptual biases and achieve uniform spatial coverage. A novel rendering algorithm, MultiCBF, extended control barrier functions to support multi-directional feedback. Our system evaluation showed that compared to a no-feedback condition, AeroHaptix effectively reduced the number of collisions and input disagreement. Furthermore, operators reported that AeroHaptix was more helpful than force feedback, with improved situational awareness and comparable workload.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".