Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37299886›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Kinesthetic Feedback for Understanding Program Execution.

Satinder Gill, Bryson J Goolsby, Dianne T V Pawluk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Satinder GillDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23219, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9222-8867
Bryson J GoolsbyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23219, USA.
Dianne T V PawlukDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23219, USA.
Virginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To better prepare future generations, knowledge about computers and programming are one of the many skills that are part of almost all Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic programs; however, teaching and learning programming is a complex task that is generally considered difficult by students and teachers alike. One approach to engage and inspire students from a variety of backgrounds is the use of educational robots. Unfortunately, previous research presents mixed results on the effectiveness of educational robots on student learning. One possibility for this lack of clarity may be because students have a wide variety of styles of learning. It is possible that the use of kinesthetic feedback, in addition to the normally used visual feedback, may improve learning with educational robots by providing a richer, multi-modal experience that may appeal to a larger number of students with different learning styles. It is also possible, however, that the addition of kinesthetic feedback, and how it may interfere with the visual feedback, may decrease a student's ability to interpret the program commands being executed by a robot, which is critical for program debugging. In this work, we investigated whether human participants were able to accurately determine a sequence of program commands performed by a robot when both kinesthetic and visual feedback were being used together. Command recall and end point location determination were compared to the typically used visual-only method, as well as a narrative description. Results from 10 sighted participants indicated that individuals were able to accurately determine a sequence of movement commands and their magnitude when using combined kinesthetic + visual feedback. Participants' recall accuracy of program commands was actually better with kinesthetic + visual feedback than just visual feedback. Although the recall accuracy was even better with the narrative description, this was primarily due to participants confusing an absolute rotation command with a relative rotation command with the kinesthetic + visual feedback. Participants' zone location accuracy of the end point after a command was executed was significantly better for both the kinesthetic + visual feedback and narrative methods compared to the visual-only method. Together, these results suggest that the use of both kinesthetic + visual feedback improves an individual's ability to interpret program commands, rather than decreases it.

Indexed as

LearningVision, OcularFeedbackHumansMovementStudentsprogramingroboticsscratchvisually impaired users

Identifiers

PMID37299886
PMCPMC10255680
OpenAlexW4378695906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.