On the ability of humans to haptically identify and discriminate real and simulated objects

Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 366-376

  O'Malley, Marcia K ^a   Goldfarb, Michael ^b  

^a RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22544466986     PISSN: 10547460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/105474605323384690     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Barac-Cikoja, D., & Turvey, M. T. (1995). Does perceived size depend on perceived distance? An argument from extended haptic perception. Perception Psychophysics, 57(2), 216-224.
2. Buttolo, P., Kung, D., & Hannaford, B. (1995). Manipulation in real, simulated, and remote environments. Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 5, 4656-4661.
3. Chan, T. C., & Turvey, M. T. (1991). Perceiving the vertical distances of surfaces by means of a hand-held probe. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 17(2), 347-358.
4. Dunnett, C. W. (1980). Pairwise multiple comparisons in the homogeneous variance, unequal sample size case. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 789-795.
5. Ellis, R., Ismaeil, O., & Lipsett, M. (1993). Design and evaluation of a high-performance prototype planar haptic interface. Advances in Robotics, Mechatronics, and Haptic Interfaces, DSC, 49, 55-64.
6. Hayter, A. J. (1984). A proof of the conjecture that the Tukey-Kramer method is conservative. The Annals of Statistics, 12, 61-75.
7. Hayter, A. J. (1989). Pairwise comparisons of generally correlated means. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 208-213.
8. Kramer, C. Y. (1956). Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics, 12, 307-310.
9. Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (2004). Haptic identification of common objects: Effects of constraining the manual exploration process. Perception and Psychophysics 66(4), 618-628.
10. O'Malley, M., & Goldfarb, M. (2002). The effect efforce saturation on the haptic perception of detail. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 7(3), 280-288.
11. O'Malley, M., & Goldfarb, M. (2004). The effect of virtual surface stiffness on the haptic perception of detail. IEEE/ ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 9(2), 448-454.
12. Perry, C. M. (1997). Design of a high performance robot for use in haptic interface and force feedback research. Unpublished master's thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
13. Richard, P., Coiffet, P., Kheddar, A., & England, R. (1999). Human performance evaluation of two handle haptic devices in a dextrous virtual telemanipulation task. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1543-1548.
14. Shimojo, M., Shinohara, M., & Fukui, Y. (1997). Human shape recognition performance for 3D tactile display. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 4, 3192-3197.
15. Tukey, J. W. (1952). Allowances for various types of error rates. Unpublished IMS address, Chicago, IL.
16. Tukey, J. W. (1953). The problem of multiple comparisons. Unpublished manuscript.
17. Unger, B. J., Nicolaidis, A., Berkelman, P. J., Thompson, A., Klatzky, R. L., & Hollis, R. L. (2001). Comparison of 3-D haptic peg-in-hole tasks in real and virtual environments. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 3, 1751-1756.
18. Upperman, G., Suzuki, A. & O'Malley, M. (2004). Comparison of human haptic size discrimination performance in simulated environments with varying levels of force and stiffness. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Chicago, IL.
19. West, A. M., & Cutkosky, M. R. (1997). Detection of real and virtual fine surface features with a haptic interface and stylus. Proceedings of the ASME IMECE, DSC, 61, 159-166.