Haptic interaction with virtual objects. Spatial perception and motor control.

E D Fasse; N Hogan; B A Kay; F A Mussa-Ivaldi

doi:10.1007/pl00007962

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10650909

Haptic interaction with virtual objects. Spatial perception and motor control.

E D Fasse·N Hogan·B A Kay·F A Mussa-Ivaldi

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper considers interaction of the human arm with "virtual" objects simulated mechanically by a planar robot. Haptic perception of spatial properties of objects is distorted. It is reasonable to expect that it may be distorted in a geometrically consistent way. Three experiments were performed to quantify perceptual distortion of length, angle and orientation. We found that spatial perception is geometrically inconsistent across these perceptual tasks. Given that spatial perception is distorted, it is plausible that motor behavior may be distorted in a way consistent with perceptual distortion. In a fourth experiment, subjects were asked to draw circles. The results were geometrically inconsistent with those of the length perception experiment. Interestingly, although the results were inconsistent (statistically different), this difference was not strong (the relative distortion between the observed distributions was small). Some computational implications of this research for haptic perception and motor planning are discussed.

Explore related subjects

Distance Perception Humans Models, Biological Models, Theoretical Psychomotor Performance Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

E D Fasse, N Hogan, B A Kay, F A Mussa-Ivaldi. 2000. Haptic interaction with virtual objects. Spatial perception and motor control.. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00007962

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

How vertical disparities assist judgements of distance.

The ratio of the vertical sizes of corresponding features in the two eyes' retinal images depends both on the associated object's distance and on its horizontal direction relative to the head (eccentricity). It is known that manipulations of vertical size ratio can affect perceived distance, size, depth and shape. We examined how observers use the vertical size ratio to determine the viewing distance. Do they use the horizontal gradient of vertical size ratio, or do they combine the vertical size ratio itself with the eccentricity at which it is found? Distance scaling (as measured by having subjects set an ellipsoid's size and shape to match a tennis ball) was no better when the judged object was 30 degrees to the right of the head (where vertical size ratios vary considerably with distance) than when it was located straight ahead. Distance scaling improved when vertical disparities were presented within larger visual fields, irrespective of where this was relative to the head. Our results support the proposal that subjects use the horizontal gradient of vertical size ratio to estimate the distance of an object that they are looking at.

Distance Perception↗

PubMed2001

Lighting position and judgments of distance of shadow-casting objects.

Participants recruited on the web performed in two experiments in which they viewed eight pictures of the same two rods in the exact same positions with shadows generated by a light source located at eight positions around the rods. In Exp. 1, participants judged how much shadows projected to the front, back, and sides of the rods facilitated the correct perception of the actual distance of the rods relative to each other. In Exp. 1 (n: 52), frontal lighting facilitated judgments more than lighting from the rear, but frontal and side lighting did not differ in facilitative effects. In Exp. 2 (n: 72), judgments of rods depicted with shadows were relative to a judgment of the rods depicted without shadows (raw scores were the value of the judgment of the shadowless rods subtracted from the value of the judgment of each of the eight sets of rods). Again, frontal lighting was more facilitative than rear lighting and frontal lighting did not differ from side lighting. However, when the average of each participant's backlighting judgments was compared with his judgment of the shadowless rods, shadows generated by backlighting were more facilitative than none.

Distance Perception↗

PubMed2001

Individual differences and the use of nonspecifying variables in learning to perceive distance and size: comments on McConnell, Muchisky, and Bingham (1998).

McConnell, Muchisky, and Bingham (1998) showed that observers are able to judge the distance and size of falling, rolling, and swinging balls and that performance improves after practice with feedback. They concluded that observers use information that specifies the spatial scales of the different event types--namely, event duration in combination with event-specific constants. The improvement was interpreted as the calibration of the event-specific constants. We argue that their analyses should have considered the use of optical variables that do not specify the to-be-perceived metrics and individual differences in variable use. Furthermore, we propose convergence on the more useful variables as an alternative explanation for the observed improvement. The viability of these arguments is demonstrated with an experiment in which participants are trained with feedback to judge the distance and size of freely falling balls.

Distance Perception↗