Effects of visual-haptic asynchronies and loading-unloading movements on compliance perception

Brain Research Bulletin

Volumn 85, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 245-259

  Di Luca, M ^a   Knorlein B ^b   Ernst, M O ^a   Harders, M ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Asynchrony; Augmented reality; Compliance; Perception; Stiffness; Visual haptic

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPLIANCE (PHYSICAL); FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPRIOCEPTION; TOUCH; VISUAL INFORMATION;

ADULT; COMPLIANCE; FEMALE; HAND; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MOVEMENT; PROPRIOCEPTION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; STRESS, MECHANICAL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79958776658     PISSN: 03619230     EISSN: 18732747     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2010.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bicchi A., Scilingo E.P., De Rossi D. Haptic discrimination of softness in teleoperation: the role of the contact area spread rate. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 2000, 16:496-504.
2. Ernst M.O. A Bayesian view on multimodal cue integration. Human Body Perception from the Inside Out 2005, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. G. Knoblich, M. Grosjean, I. Thornton, M. Shiffrar (Eds.).
3. Ernst M.O., Banks M.S. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 2002, 415:429-433.
4. Friedman R., Hester K., Green B., Lamotte R. Magnitude estimation of softness. Experimental Brain Research 2008, 191:133-142.
5. Harders M., Bianchi G., Knörlein B., Szekely G. Calibration, registration, and synchronization for high precision augmented reality haptics. TVCG 2009, 15:138-149.
6. Hillis J., Ernst M.O., Banks M.S., Landy M. Combining sensory information: mandatory fusion within, but not between, senses. Science 2002, 298:1627-1630.
7. Hirche S., Bauer A., Buss M. Transparency of haptic telepresence systems with constant time delay. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Conference on Control Applications 2005.
8. Jones L., Hunter I. A perceptual analysis of stiffness. Experimental Brain Research 1990, 79:150-156.
9. Kuschel M., Buss M., Freyberger F., Farber B., Klatzky R.L. Visual-haptic perception of compliance: fusion of visual and haptic information. Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems 2008, 79-86.
10. LaMotte R.H. Softness discrimination with a tool. The Journal of Neurophysiology 2000, 83:1777-1786.
11. Lawrence D., Pao L., Dougherty A., Salada M. Rate-hardness: a new performance metric for haptic interfaces. Robotics and Automation 2000, 16:357-371.
12. Macfadyen N., Maher C.G., Adams R. Number of sampling movements and manual stiffness judgments. Journal of Manipulative Physiological Therapy 1998, 21:604-610.
13. Maher C.G., Adams R.D. Stiffness judgments are affected by visual occlusion. Journal of Manipulative Physiological Therapy 1996, 19:250-256.
14. Nisky I., Mussa-Ivaldi F.A., Karniel A. A regression and boundary-crossing-based model for the perception of delayed stiffness. IEEE Transactions on Haptics 2008, 1(2):73-83.
15. Ohnishi H., Mochizuki K. Effect of delay of feedback force on perception of elastic force: a psychophysical approach. IEICE Transactions on Communications 2007, E90-B(1):12-20.
16. Pressman A., Nisky I., Karniel A., Mussa-Ivaldi F.A. Probing virtual boundaries and the perception of delayed stiffness. Advanced Robotics 2008, 22:119-140.
17. Pressman A., Welty L., Karniel A., Mussa-Ivaldi F.A. Perception of delayed stiffness. The International Journal of Robotics Research 2007, 26:1191-1203.
18. Radeau M Auditory-visual spatial interaction and modularity. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 1994, 13:3-51.
19. Sober S.J., Sabes P.N. Flexible strategies for sensory integration during motor planning. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8:490-497.
20. Srinivasan M.A., Lamotte R. Tactual discrimination of softness. Journal of Neurophysiology 1995, 79:88-101.
21. Srinivasan M., Beauregard G., Brock D. The impact of visual information on the haptic perception of stiffness in virtual environments. Proceedings of the ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division 1996, 58:555-559.
22. Sulzer J., Salamat A., Chib V., Colgate J.E. A behavioral adaptation approach to identifying visual dependence of haptic perception. Proceedings of the Second Joint EuroHaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems 2007, 3-8.
23. Tan H., Durlach N., Beauregard G.L., Srinivasan M.A. Manual discrimination of compliance using active pinch grasp: the roles of force and work cues. Perception and Psychophysics 1995, 57:495-510.
24. Tan H., Durlach N., Shao Y., Wei M. Manual resolution of compliance when force and work cues are minimized. Advances in Robotics 1993, 49:99-104.
25. Tan H., Pang X.D., Durlach N.I. Manual resolution of length, force, and compliance. Proceedings of ASME WAM 1992, 42:13-18.
26. Tsakiris M, Haggard P. The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2005, 31:80-91.
27. van Beers R.J., Sittig A.C., Denier van der Gon J.J. The precision of proprioceptive position sense. Experimental Brain Research 1998, 122:367-377.
28. van Beers R.J., Baraduc P., Wolpert D.M. Role of uncertainty in sensorimotor control. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 2002, 357:1137-1145.
29. Vogels I.M.L.C. Detection of temporal delays in visual-haptic interfaces. Human Factors 2004, 46:118-134.
30. Wichmann F., Hill N. The psychometric function. I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Perception and Psychophysics 2001, 63:1293-1313.