| Literature DB >> 29212757 |
David Gueorguiev1,2, Eric Vezzoli3, André Mouraux1, Betty Lemaire-Semail3, Jean-Louis Thonnard4,5.
Abstract
When we touch an object or explore a texture, frictional strains are induced by the tactile interactions with the surface of the object. Little is known about how these interactions are perceived, although it becomes crucial for the nascent industry of interactive displays with haptic feedback (e.g. smartphones and tablets) where tactile feedback based on friction modulation is particularly relevant. To investigate the human perception of frictional strains, we mounted a high-fidelity friction modulating ultrasonic device on a robotic platform performing controlled rubbing of the fingertip and asked participants to detect induced decreases of friction during a forced-choice task. The ability to perceive the changes in friction was found to follow Weber's Law of just noticeable differences, as it consistently depended on the ratio between the reduction in tangential force and the pre-stimulation tangential force. The Weber fraction was 0.11 in all conditions demonstrating a very high sensitivity to transient changes in friction. Humid fingers experienced less friction reduction than drier ones for the same intensity of ultrasonic vibration but the Weber fraction for detecting changes in friction was not influenced by the humidity of the skin.Entities:
Keywords: Weber fraction; friction; skin humidity; squeeze film; tactile displays; ultrasonic vibration
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29212757 PMCID: PMC5746570 DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2017.0641
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J R Soc Interface ISSN: 1742-5662 Impact factor: 4.118
Figure 1.(a) Ultrasonic tactile display mounted on the robotic platform used to slide the surface of the display against the index fingertip. The hand and fingers are maintained by holders. The experiments were performed using three different interfacial materials: aluminium (AI), polypropylene (PP) and polyurethane (PU). (b) For each participant, the average tangential and normal force across all trials are plotted (mean ± s.d.). The normal force is kept constant at 0.7 N, while the tangential force shows large variations depending on the interfacial material and the mechanical properties of the fingertip. (c) Time-course of the transient reduction in friction induced by ultrasonic stimulation. The TF was reduced during two intervals of 100 ms occurring in the middle of the slide, which are indicated by arrows. The waveforms illustrate the force profile for a slide with and without ultrasonic stimulation, respectively. The normal force values are represented as negative for better visibility. (d) Coefficients of dynamic friction of the three tested materials (mean ± s.d.). (e) Spearman correlation between the humidity level of the fingertip and the participant's coefficient of dynamic friction for the three tested materials. (Online version in colour.)
Figure 2.(a) For each trial, the two ultrasonic pulses composing the stimulation were analysed separately and the results showed that the second pulse induced a significantly higher reduction of TF (mean ± s.d.) than the first one. The same trend was observed for all three tested interfacial materials. (b) The stimulation and psychophysical procedure were performed on a static finger with the exact same timing and normal force as in the dynamic condition. The averaged correct answers for all the participants are plotted (mean ± s.d.) for all amplitudes as well as the individual proportions of correct answers (colour stars). (c) Performance at detecting the ultrasonic pulses compared to the amplitude of the ultrasonic vibrations. The psychometric function computed out of the median of the individual slopes and psychophysical thresholds (median ± IQR) was computed for each material (the three curves are slightly shifted for a better visibility: Al is accurate, PP is shifted by 0.02 upwards and PU is shifted by 0.02 downwards). (d) Average net reduction of TF for each material according to the amplitude of ultrasonic vibration (mean ± s.d.). A linear regression was computed for each material and plotted as a continuous line. (e) Average relative reduction of TF for each material (mean ± s.d.). A linear regression was computed for each material and plotted as a continuous line.
Figure 3.(a) Net reduction of friction computed at the individual psychophysical thresholds, for the three tested materials (mean ± s.d.). (b) Relative reduction of TF computed at the individual psychophysical threshold (mean ± s.d.). (c) The psychometric function computed out of the median of the individual slopes and psychophysical thresholds (median ± IQR) was computed for each material (the three curves are slightly shifted for better visibility: Al is accurate, PP is shifted by 0.01 upwards and PU is shifted by 0.01 downwards).
Figure 4.(a) Pearson correlation between the individual humidity level of the skin and the mean reduction of TF for each material. The correlation was significant for aluminium (dashed line). (b) Pearson correlation between the individual coefficient of dynamic friction and the mean reduction of TF. The correlation, represented on the figure by dashed lines, was strongly significant for aluminium and polypropylene. (c) Pearson correlation between the individual humidity level of the skin of the participants and the participants' Weber fractions. (d) Pearson correlation between the coefficient of dynamic friction and the participants' Weber fractions. (Online version in colour.)