Cited by 10Motor Control and AdaptationTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Assisting versus repelling force-feedback for human learning of a line following task

Chen, Xi, Agrawal, Sunil K.·2012·2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob)

Abstract

Previous work has shown that training with `assist-as-needed' method using force-feedback joystick can improve driving performance of children and adults. This work is the first study to evaluate training with a repelling force versus an assisting force for learning of a line following task. We designed a robotic training wheelchair that can accurately localize itself in the training environment, and implemented assisting and repelling force fields on the force-feedback joystick. The training protocol included three groups. The control (CT) group received no force feedback. The assisting force (AF) group was trained using the `assist-as-needed' paradigm. The repelling force (RF) group was trained with the repelling force field. We observed that both the AF and RF group improved their driving skills, however, the RF group had the greatest trajectory error reduction. We believe that this pilot study could provide a promising foundation regarding robotic wheelchair algorithm effects on adult learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/biorob.2012.6290678

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Improvement in driving skills was shown for two subject groups trained in wheelchair driving using assist-as-needed and repelling force paradigms compared with a control group without haptic feedback.

    “These results have been recently extended in a study that showed improvement in driving skills of two subject groups that were trained in wheelchair driving using assist-as-needed and repelling force paradigms, as compared with a control group that did not receive any haptic feedback (Chen & Agrawal, 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, X., & Agrawal, S. K.
Affiliations
University of Delaware (US)
Venue
2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2012-06
Pages
344-349
ISSN
2155-1774 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016074712
Cited by
10
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.48
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Teleoperation and Haptic Systems
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
force feedback, joystick, wheelchair driving, trajectory error, human learning, assistive robotics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review