Assisting versus repelling force-feedback for human learning of a line following task
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review (2013) · cites this paper as Chen & Agrawal, 2012
Cites
Haptic Guidance Improves the Visuo-Manual Tracking of Trajectories
Bluteau, J., Coquillart, S., Payan, Y., & Gentaz, E. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001775 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review
Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0333-8 · Cited by 1,416 · see citing works
- 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