Exploratory movements determine cue weighting in haptic length perception of handheld rods

Journal of Neurophysiology

Volumn 104, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 2821-2830

  Debats, Nienke B ^a   Van De Langenberg, Rolf W ^a   Kingma, Idsart ^a   Smeets, Jeroen B J ^a   Beek, Peter J ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BIOMECHANICS; FORCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MASS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TACTILE DISCRIMINATION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CUES; EXPLORATORY BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; SIZE PERCEPTION; TOUCH; WEIGHT PERCEPTION;

EID: 78049510408     PISSN: 00223077     EISSN: 15221598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/jn.01029.2009     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Akaike H. New look at statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automatic Control 19: 716-723, 1974.
2. Berme N, Capozzo A, Meglan J. Rigid body mechanics as applied to human movement studies. In: Biomechanics of Human Movement: Applications in Rehabilitation, Sports and Ergonomics, edited by Berme N, Capozzo, A. Worthington, OH: Bertec, 1990, p. 89-107.
3. Drewing K, Ernst MO. Integration of force and position cues for shape perception through active touch. Brain Res 1078: 92-100, 2006.
4. Drewing K, Kaim L. Haptic shape perception from force and position signals varies with exploratory movement direction and the exploring finger. Atten Percept Psycho 71: 1174-1184, 2009.
5. Drewing K, Wiecki TV, Ernst MO. Material properties determine how force and position signals combine in haptic shape perception. Acta Psychol 128: 264-273, 2008.
6. Ernst MO, Banks MS. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415: 429-433, 2002.
7. Ernst MO, Bulthoff HH. Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cogn Sci 8: 162-169, 2004.
8. Gepshtein S, Banks MS. Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception. Curr Biol 13: 483-488, 2003.
9. Gibson JJ. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.
10. Hayya J, Armstrong D, Gressis N. A note on the ratio of two normally distributed variables. Manage Sci 21: 1338-1341, 1975.
11. Hinkley DV. On the ratio of two correlated normal random variables. Biometrika 56: 635-639, 1969.
12. Kingma I, Beek PJ, Van Dien JH. The inertia tensor versus static moment and mass in perceiving length and heaviness of hand-wielded rods. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28: 180-191, 2002.
13. Kingma I, van de Langenberg R, Beek PJ. Which mechanical invariants are associated with the perception of length and heaviness of a nonvisible handheld rod? Testing the inertia tensor hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30: 346-354, 2004.
14. Knill DC, Pouget A. The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends Neurosci 27: 712-719, 2004.
15. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL. Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cogn Psychol 19: 342-368, 1987.
16. Menger R, Withagen R. How mechanical context and feedback jointly determine the use of mechanical variables in length perception by dynamic touch. Atten Percept Psycho 71: 1862-1875, 2009.
17. Mugge W, Schuurmans J, Schouten AC, van der Helm FCT. Sensory weighting of force and position feedback in human motor control tasks. J Neurosci 29: 5476-5482, 2009.
18. Muller CMP, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ. Living up to optimal expectations. J Vision 7: 1-10, 2007.
19. Robles-De-La-Torre G, Hayward V. Force can overcome object geometry in the perception of shape through active touch. Nature 412: 445-448, 2001.
20. Sanders AF, Kappers AM. A kinematic cue for active haptic shape perception. Brain Res 1267: 25-36, 2009.
21. Smith AM, Gosselin G, Houde B. Deployment of fingertip forces in tactile exploration. Exp Brain Res 147: 209-218, 2002.
22. Söderkvist I. Some nummerical methods for kinematical analysis. In: Department of Computational Science, Univercity of Umeä, 1990.
23. Solomon HY, Turvey MT. Haptically perceiving the distances reachable with hand-held objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 14: 404-427, 1988.
24. Solomon HY, Turvey MT, Burton G. Perceiving extents of rods by wielding: haptic diagonalization and decomposition of the inertia tensor. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 15: 58-68, 1989.
25. Turvey MT. Dynamic touch. Am Psychol 51: 1134-1152, 1996.
26. van Beers RJ, Sittig AC, van der Gon JJD. The precision of proprioceptive position sense. Exp Brain Res 122: 367-377, 1998.
27. van Beers RJ, Sittig AC, van der Gon JJ. Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information: an experimentally supported model. J Neurophysiol 81: 1355-1364, 1999.
28. van de Langenberg R, Kingma I, Beek PJ. Mechanical invariants are implicated in dynamic touch as a function of their salience in the stimulus flow. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32: 1093-1106, 2006.
29. Withagen R, Michaels CF. The role of feedback information for calibration and attunement in perceiving length by dynamic touch. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31: 1379-1390, 2005.
30. Withagen R, van Wermeskerken M. Individual differences in learning to perceive length by dynamic touch: evidence for variation in perceptual learning capacities. Atten Percept Psycho 71: 64-75, 2009.