Identifying objects by touch: An “expert system”

Klatzky, Roberta L.; Lederman, Susan J.; Metzger, Victoria A.

doi:10.3758/bf03211351

Cited by 494 publications

(300 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

277

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using both hands, observers could distinguish these objects in 1.0 seconds. For common household objects, whose shapes are more complex than those we used, observers were able to perform haptic object recognition in under 2 seconds with a 4% error rate [3]. With a set of common objects that did not appreciably differ in material properties (a shape recognition task), the mean time was 6.2 seconds with a 5 % error rate [4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Shape recognition tasks use stimuli which can only be discriminated based upon the geometric arrangement of their features, whereas object recognition tasks feature stimuli such as familiar household objects for which material properties are also a strongly diagnostic attribute. Object recognition was used in the classic series of studies by Klatzky and Lederman where observers were asked to haptically identify common objects [3]. In another study, the same authors used a restricted set of objects which could not be readily distinguished by material properties, producing a shape recognition task [4].…”

Section: The Shape Recognition Task and Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A shape recognition benchmark for evaluating usability of a haptic environment

Kirkpatrick

Douglas

2001

Haptic Human-Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a benchmark task for evaluating the usability of haptic environments for a shape perception task. The task measures the ease with which observers can recognize members of a standard set of five shapes defined by Koenderink. Median time for 12 participants to recognize these shapes with the PHANToM was 23 seconds. This recognition time is within the range for shape recognition of physical objects using 1 finger but far slower than recognition using the whole hand. The results suggest haptic environments must provide multiple points of contact with an object for rapid performance of shape recognition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: The Shape Recognition Task and Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

A shape recognition benchmark for evaluating usability of a haptic environment

Kirkpatrick

Douglas

2001

Haptic Human-Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With such potential for confusion, one might well ask how individuals are ever able to identify complex objects haptically. As Klatzky, Lederman, and Metzger (1985) have shown, blindfolded subjects are extremely accurate in identifying common three-dimensional objects. The authors also report, however, that typical response latencies were in the range of 1-2 sec.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Evans

Craig

Rinker

1992

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation, The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers (on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation. 571A recent study by Evans and Craig (1991) indicated that subjects have difficulty focusing their attention on one finger and ignoring stimulation at an adjacent site. In this study, subjects were instructed to focus their attention on the left index fmger and to identify the direction of movement of the stimulus presented to that finger. A second stimulus, also moving, was presented to the middle finger, adjacent to the index finger. The stimuli moved in the same direction or in opposite directions. We reasoned that if subjects could restrict their attention to the target location, the presence of the nontarget would produce little, if any, interference. If, however, subjects are unable to restrict their attention to a single finger on one hand, then the direction of movement of the adjacent nontarget might interfere with target performance in a systematic fashion. Specifically, target performance might be interfered with when the direction of movement of the nontarget was opposite to that of the target. The results showed that when the target and nontarget moved in opposite directions, accuracy was reduced and response latencies (correct trials) This research was supported by Grant DC-00095 from the National Institutesof Health and was conducted while the first author was a visiting scholar in the Institute for the Study of Human Capabilities at Indiana University. The authors thank Roger P. Rhodes for his assistance in conducting these experiments. Reprint requests should be addressed to P. M. Evans, Department o...

show abstract

“…The efficacy of this processing pathway is demonstrated by the finding that familiar objects are recognized quickly and with very high accuracy by touch alone (Klatzky, Lederman, & Metzger, 1985). The foundation for this ability lies in the sensory primitives signaled by the peripheral receptors.…”

Section: The "What" Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%