Optimizing Vibrotactile Feedback for Sensory Substitution in the Thigh: Spatial Acuity and Frequency Characteristics
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
Amputation of a lower limb not only affects mobility but also interferes with sensory feedback, leading to an elevated risk of falls among individuals living with amputation. Sensory substitution, achieved through tactile displays embedded in transfemoral prosthetic sockets, presents a promising non-invasive solution to provide artificial sensation to users. However, for this approach to be effective, users must accurately perceive distinct combinations of vibrations, a capacity limited by their two-point discrimination ability. This study examined whether spacing two vibrotactile stimuli within the 20-30 mm range, on the thigh, enabled the perception of distinct points and whether vibration frequency affected spatial acuity. We defined the ability to perceive two distinct points as achieving at least a 75% accuracy in responses, and based on this criterion, we determined that the minimum distance required for two-point discrimination lies between 25 mm and 30 mm. Notably, our study revealed that spatial acuity was not altered when vibrating at either low (30 Hz) or high (150 Hz) frequencies, provided the vibrations were at the perceptual threshold. Lastly, our findings consistently favoured stimuli that were spaced out vertically over horizontal ones. These findings contribute to the improvement of tactile displays intended for sensory substitution in transfemoral prostheses.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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