Literature DB >> 18679665

Magnitude estimation of softness.

Robert M Friedman1, Kim D Hester, Barry G Green, Robert H LaMotte.   

Abstract

The human capacity to estimate the magnitude of softness of silicone rubber disks of differing compliance was studied under experimental conditions that altered the mode of contact. Subjects were able to scale softness regardless of whether they (1) actively indented each specimen by tapping or pressing it with the finger pad, (2) received passive indentation of the finger pad by each specimen via a force controlled tactile stimulator, thus eliminating kinesthetic cues, or (3) actively indented each specimen with a stylus that was manipulated either by tapping with one finger, or held by two fingers in a precision grip, thereby removing tactile cues provided by direct mechanical contact between the finger pad and specimen. Ratings of softness were independent of moderate variations in peak compressional force and force-rate. Additionally, functions for scaling softness were affected by the mode of contact; the slopes of the functions were greater in the tasks with a complete complement of compliance cues. When subjects were asked to classify objects as either hard or soft, specimens were classified as soft if the compliance were greater than that of the human finger. This suggests that the classification of softness depends on whether the object conforms to the body, and that tactile information about the spatial profile of object deformation is sufficient for the magnitude scaling of softness. But typically, kinesthetic information about the magnitude of object displacement, along with contact vibratory cues is also used while judging softness especially in the absence of direct skin contact with the object when using a tool.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18679665      PMCID: PMC2574806          DOI: 10.1007/s00221-008-1507-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  7 in total

1.  Softness discrimination with a tool.

Authors:  R H LaMotte
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Slowly adapting type I afferents from the sides and end of the finger respond to stimuli on the center of the fingerpad.

Authors:  J W Bisley; A W Goodwin; H E Wheat
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Encoding of direction of fingertip forces by human tactile afferents.

Authors:  I Birznieks; P Jenmalm; A W Goodwin; R S Johansson
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2001-10-15       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 4.  Haptic identification of common objects: effects of constraining the manual exploration process.

Authors:  Susan J Lederman; Roberta L Klatzky
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2004-05

5.  Encoding of shape and orientation of objects indented into the monkey fingerpad by populations of slowly and rapidly adapting mechanoreceptors.

Authors:  P S Khalsa; R M Friedman; M A Srinivasan; R H Lamotte
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Magnitude estimation of tangential force applied to the fingerpad.

Authors:  Michel Paré; Heather Carnahan; Allan M Smith
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2001-12-04       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Tactual discrimination of softness.

Authors:  M A Srinivasan; R H LaMotte
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 2.714

  7 in total
  15 in total

1.  Quantifying vaginal tissue elasticity under normal and prolapse conditions by tactile imaging.

Authors:  Vladimir Egorov; Heather van Raalte; Vincent Lucente
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Effects of changing skin mechanics on the differential sensitivity to surface compliance by tactile afferents in the human finger pad.

Authors:  Kathryn M Hudson; Melia Condon; Rochelle Ackerley; Francis McGlone; Håkan Olausson; Vaughan G Macefield; Ingvars Birznieks
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Contact mechanics of the human finger pad under compressive loads.

Authors:  Brygida M Dzidek; Michael J Adams; James W Andrews; Zhibing Zhang; Simon A Johnson
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  Psychophysical Detection of Inclusions with the Bare Finger amidst Softness Differentials.

Authors:  Leigh A Baumgart; Gregory J Gerling; Ellen J Bass
Journal:  Proc Symp Haptic Interface Virtual Env Teleoperator Syst       Date:  2010-04-10

5.  Computational Modeling Reinforces that Proprioceptive Cues May Augment Compliance Discrimination When Elasticity Is Decoupled From Radius of Curvature.

Authors:  Yuxiang Wang; Gregory J Gerling
Journal:  Haptics (2014)       Date:  2014

6.  Force-Rate Cues Reduce Object Deformation Necessary to Discriminate Compliances Harder than the Skin.

Authors:  Steven Conrad Hauser; Gregory John Gerling; Steven Conrad Hauser; Gregory John Gerling; Gregory John Gerling; Steven Conrad Hauser
Journal:  IEEE Trans Haptics       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 2.487

7.  Measuring tactile cues at the fingerpad for object compliances harder and softer than the skin.

Authors:  Steven C Hauser; Gregory J Gerling
Journal:  IEEE Haptics Symp       Date:  2016-04

8.  Prosthetic finger phalanges with lifelike skin compliance for low-force social touching interactions.

Authors:  John-John Cabibihan; Raditya Pradipta; Shuzhi Sam Ge
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 4.262

9.  Patient-specific prosthetic fingers by remote collaboration--a case study.

Authors:  John-John Cabibihan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Vibration influences haptic perception of surface compliance during walking.

Authors:  Yon Visell; Bruno L Giordano; Guillaume Millet; Jeremy R Cooperstock
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.