single-rb.php

JRM Vol.18 No.4 pp. 489-498
doi: 10.20965/jrm.2006.p0489
(2006)

Paper:

Haptic Length Display Based on Cutaneous-Proprioceptive Integration

Kazunori Terada*, Akinori Kumazaki*, Daisuke Miyata**,
and Akira Ito*

*Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu 501-1193, Japan

**FUJI SOFT ABC INCORPORATED, 1-1 Sakuragi-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa 231-8008, Japan

Received:
January 18, 2006
Accepted:
May 1, 2006
Published:
August 20, 2006
Keywords:
haptic display, multisensory integration, cutaneous sensation, proprioception
Abstract

When a human recognizes length of an object while exploring it with an index finger, both proprioception and cutaneous sensation provide information for estimating the length of the object. We studied the contribution of cutaneous sensation and proprioception to the subjective estimation of object length, developing an apparatus for investigating the human cutaneous-proprioceptive integration using velocity dependency of cutaneous and proprioceptive length perception. We conducted four experiments. In experiment 1, 12 subjects estimated object length passively, using cutaneous sensation only via the index finger. In experiment 2, ten subjects estimated the distance if index finger traveled passively without cutaneous sensation. In experiment 3, subjects used both cutaneous and proprioceptive sensation to estimate the object length. The results showed that using both senses simultaneously improves length perception. In experiment 4, 17 subjects estimated object length moving the index finger passively but with the cutaneous sensation and proprioception differing in perceived length. The results showed that subjects relied on the greater sensation if proprioceptive and cutaneous sensations were discrepant.

Cite this article as:
K. Terada, A. Kumazaki, D. Miyata, and <. Ito, “Haptic Length Display Based on Cutaneous-Proprioceptive Integration,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.18, No.4, pp. 489-498, 2006.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] D. F. Collins, K. M. Refshauge, G. Todd, and S. C. Gandevia, “Cutaneous receptors contribute to kinesthesia at the index finger, elbow, and knee,” Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol.94, pp. 1699-1706, 2005.
  2. [2] R. H. Cormack, “Haptic illusion: apparent elongation of a disk rotated between the fingers,” Science, Vol.179, No.73, pp. 590-592, 1973.
  3. [3] D. A. Corsini, and H. L. Pick Jr., “The effect of texture on tactually perceived length,” Perception & Psychophysics, Vol.5, No.6, pp. 352-356, 1969.
  4. [4] M. Degenaar, and G.-J. Lokhorst, “Molyneux’s problem,” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall, 2005.
  5. [5] J. J. DiCarlo, and K. O. Johnson, “Velocity invariance of receptive field structure in somatosensory cortical area 3b of the alert monkey,” The Journal of Neuroscience, Vol.19, No.1, pp. 401-419, 1999.
  6. [6] H. Faineteau, E. Gentaz, and P. Viviani, “The kinaesthetic perception of euclidean distance: a study of the detour effect,” Experimental Brain Research, Vol.152, No.2, pp. 166-172, 2003.
  7. [7] J. J. Gibson, “Observations on active touch,” Psychological Review, Vol.69, No.6, pp. 477-491, 1962.
  8. [8] H. Helson, “The tau effect.an example of psychological relativity,” Science, Vol.71, No.1847, pp. 536-537, 1930.
  9. [9] A. Hohmuth, W. D. Phillips, and H. VanRomer, “A discrepancy between two modes of haptic length perception,” The Journal of Psychology, Vol.92, pp. 79-87, 1976.
  10. [10] M. Hollins, and A. K. Goble, “Perception of the length of voluntary movements,” Somatosensory Research, Vol.5, No.4, pp. 335-348, 1988.
  11. [11] M. Hollins, and S. R. Risner, “Evidence for the duplex theory of tactile texture perception,” Perception & Psychophysics, Vol.62, No.4, pp. 695-705, 2000.
  12. [12] K. O. Johnson, and J. R. Phillips, “A rotating drum stimulator for scanning embossed patterns and textures across the skin,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, Vol.22, No.3, pp. 221-231, 1988.
  13. [13] J. R. Pruett Jr., R. J. Sinclair, and H. Burton, “Response patterns in second somatosensory cortex (SII) of awake monkeys to passively applied tactile gratings,” The Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol.84, No.2, pp. 780-797, 2000.
  14. [14] D. Kats, “The world of touch,” Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989.
  15. [15] S. J. Lederman, R. L. Klatzky, and P. O. Barber, “Spatial and movementbased heuristics for encoding pattern information through touch,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol.114, No.1, pp. 33-49, 1985.
  16. [16] E. M. Meftah, L. Belingard, and C. E. Chapman, “Relative effects of the spatial and temporal characteristics of scanned surfaces on human perception of tactile roughness using passive touch,” Experimental Brain Research, Vol.132, No.3, pp. 351- 361, 2000.
  17. [17] V. Smetacek, and F. Mechsner, “Making sense,” Nature, Vol.432, No.21, 2004.
  18. [18] R. J. van Beers, D. M. Wolpert, and P. Haggard, “When feeling is more important than seeing in sensorimotor adaptation,” Current Biology, Vol.12, No.10, pp. 843-847, 2002.
  19. [19] S. Wapner, J. Weinberg, J. A. Glick, and G. Rand, “Effect of speed of movement on tactualkinesthetic perception of extent,” American Journal of Psychology, Vol.80, No.4, pp. 608-613, 1967.
  20. [20] B. L. Whitsel, O. Franzen, D. A. Dreyer, M. Hollins, M. Young, G. K. Essick, and C. Wong, “Dependence of subjective traverse length on velocity of moving tactile stimuli,” Somatosensory Research, Vol.3, No.3, pp. 185-196, 1986.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Jan. 23, 2020