↓ Skip to main content

Assisting Movement Training and Execution With Visual and Haptic Feedback

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurorobotics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assisting Movement Training and Execution With Visual and Haptic Feedback
Published in
Frontiers in Neurorobotics, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnbot.2018.00024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Ewerton, David Rother, Jakob Weimar, Gerrit Kollegger, Josef Wiemeyer, Jan Peters, Guilherme Maeda

Abstract

In the practice of motor skills in general, errors in the execution of movements may go unnoticed when a human instructor is not available. In this case, a computer system or robotic device able to detect movement errors and propose corrections would be of great help. This paper addresses the problem of how to detect such execution errors and how to provide feedback to the human to correct his/her motor skill using a general, principled methodology based on imitation learning. The core idea is to compare the observed skill with a probabilistic model learned from expert demonstrations. The intensity of the feedback is regulated by the likelihood of the model given the observed skill. Based on demonstrations, our system can, for example, detect errors in the writing of characters with multiple strokes. Moreover, by using a haptic device, the Haption Virtuose 6D, we demonstrate a method to generate haptic feedback based on a distribution over trajectories, which could be used as an auxiliary means of communication between an instructor and an apprentice. Additionally, given a performance measurement, the haptic device can help the human discover and perform better movements to solve a given task. In this case, the human first tries a few times to solve the task without assistance. Our framework, in turn, uses a reinforcement learning algorithm to compute haptic feedback, which guides the human toward better solutions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 24%
Computer Science 9 18%
Psychology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Design 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,971,835
of 23,081,466 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#526
of 885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,540
of 331,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#17
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,081,466 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 885 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.