Multidimensional scaling analysis of haptic exploratory procedures

Cooke, Theresa; Wallraven, Christian; Bülthoff, HH

doi:10.1145/1658349.1658356

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cooke et al (2007; see also Cooke et al 2010) reported that multidimensional scaling analyses using similarity ratings from 3-D novel objects indicated that texture and shape information were similarly important for haptics, whereas shape cues were much more important than texture cues for vision (see also Lakatos and Marks 1999). This is consistent with Klatzky et al's (1985) suggestion that extra non-shape cues might explain much of the recognition benefit for 3-D over raised-line drawings.…”

supporting

confidence: 59%

Haptic Object Recognition: How Important are Depth Cues and Plane Orientation?

Lawson

Bracken

2011

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Raised-line drawings of familiar objects are very difficult to identify with active touch only. In contrast, haptically explored real 3-D objects are usually recognised efficiently, albeit slower and less accurately than with vision. Real 3-D objects have more depth information than outline drawings, but also extra information about identity (eg texture, hardness, temperature). Previous studies have not manipulated the availability of depth information in haptic object recognition whilst controlling for other information sources, so the importance of depth cues has not been assessed. In the present experiments, people named plastic small-scale models of familiar objects. Five versions of bilaterally symmetrical objects were produced. Versions varied only in the amount of depth information: minimal for cookie-cutter and filled-in outlines, partial for squashed and half objects, and full for 3-D models. Recognition was faster and much more accurate when more depth information was available, whether exploration was with both hands or just one finger. Novices found it almost impossible to recognise objects explored with two hand-held probes whereas experts succeeded using probes regardless of the amount of depth information. Surprisingly, plane misorientation did not impair recognition. Unlike with vision, depth information, but not object orientation, is extremely important for haptic object recognition.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 59%

Haptic Object Recognition: How Important are Depth Cues and Plane Orientation?

Lawson

Bracken

2011

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the way in which static (parallel) information and dynamic (serial) touch measure and weigh shape cues is highly similar 3 . A high correlation in the weighing of texture and shape cues for discriminating objects was also shown for such different exploratory procedures as contour following (serial exploration) and gripping (parallel exploration) 2 . Such similar weighting across exploration modes is useful for building stable high-level viewpoint-independent shape representations across the senses, as have been shown for vision and touch 31 32 33 34 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…This is true at least when sampling occurs globally (i.e. along a large portion of the object) and not only locally 1 2 . Moreover, the Parallel and Serial Exploration modes have been shown to assess the same low-level object features, such as local surface slant, for determining object shape 3 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Haptic adaptation to slant: No transfer between exploration modes

Dam

Plaisier

Glowania

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human touch is an inherently active sense: to estimate an object’s shape humans often move their hand across its surface. This way the object is sampled both in a serial (sampling different parts of the object across time) and parallel fashion (sampling using different parts of the hand simultaneously). Both the serial (moving a single finger) and parallel (static contact with the entire hand) exploration modes provide reliable and similar global shape information, suggesting the possibility that this information is shared early in the sensory cortex. In contrast, we here show the opposite. Using an adaptation-and-transfer paradigm, a change in haptic perception was induced by slant-adaptation using either the serial or parallel exploration mode. A unified shape-based coding would predict that this would equally affect perception using other exploration modes. However, we found that adaptation-induced perceptual changes did not transfer between exploration modes. Instead, serial and parallel exploration components adapted simultaneously, but to different kinaesthetic aspects of exploration behaviour rather than object-shape per se. These results indicate that a potential combination of information from different exploration modes can only occur at down-stream cortical processing stages, at which adaptation is no longer effective.

show abstract

“…The discrimination thresholds in active touch for both shape and roughness perception were found to be higher when the respective discrimination task was unexpected, compared to conditions in which the task was expected 8 . The emphasis of shape versus texture perception also depends on the exploration procedures which were applied 9 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tactile perception of randomly rough surfaces

Sahli

Prot

Wang

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most everyday surfaces are randomly rough and self-similar on sufficiently small scales. We investigated the tactile perception of randomly rough surfaces using 3D-printed samples, where the topographic structure and the statistical properties of scale-dependent roughness were varied independently. We found that the tactile perception of similarity between surfaces was dominated by the statistical micro-scale roughness rather than by their topographic resemblance. Participants were able to notice differences in the Hurst roughness exponent of 0.2, or a difference in surface curvature of 0.8 $$\hbox {mm}^{-1}$$ mm - 1 for surfaces with curvatures between 1 and 3 $$\hbox {mm}^{-1}$$ mm - 1 . In contrast, visual perception of similarity between color-coded images of the surface height was dominated by their topographic resemblance. We conclude that vibration cues from roughness at the length scale of the finger ridge distance distract the participants from including the topography into the judgement of similarity. The interaction between surface asperities and fingertip skin led to higher friction for higher micro-scale roughness. Individual friction data allowed us to construct a psychometric curve which relates similarity decisions to differences in friction. Participants noticed differences in the friction coefficient as small as 0.035 for samples with friction coefficients between 0.34 and 0.45.

show abstract

Multidimensional scaling analysis of haptic exploratory procedures

Cited by 14 publications

References 34 publications

Haptic Object Recognition: How Important are Depth Cues and Plane Orientation?

Haptic Object Recognition: How Important are Depth Cues and Plane Orientation?

Haptic adaptation to slant: No transfer between exploration modes

Tactile perception of randomly rough surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About