Perception of Delayed Stiffness

Abstract

Advanced technology has recently provided truly immersive virtual environments with teleoperated robotic devices. In order to control movements from a distance, the human sensorimotor system has to overcome the e fects of delay. Currently, little is known about the mechanisms that underlie haptic estimation in delayed environments. The aim of this research is to explore the e fect of a delay on perception of surfaces sti fness. A forced choice paradigm was used in which subjects were asked to identify the sti fer of two virtual spring-like surfaces based on manipulation without visual feedback. Virtual surfaces were obtained by generating an elastic force proportional to the penetration of the handle of a manipulandum inside a virtual boundary. The elastic force was either an instantaneous function of the displacement, delayed at 30 or 60 milliseconds after the displacement or led the displacement (by means of Kalman predictor) by 50 milliseconds. It was assumed that, to estimate sti fness, the brain relates the experienced interaction forces with the amount of penetration. The results of the experiment indicate a systematic dependence of the estimated sti fness upon the delay between position and force. When the force lagged the penetration, surfaces were perceived as sti fer. Conversely, when the force led the penetration, surfaces were perceived as softer. The perceptual findings were compared with different regression models. This allowed some candidate models to be discarded. To further refine the analysis, a second experiment was carried out in which the delay was introduced only during part of the hand/surface interaction, either while the hand was moving into the spring-like surface or when it was moving out of it. Findings are consistent with sti fness estimates based on dividing the maximum force by the perceived amount of penetration. Findings are not consistent with an estimate of compliance based on the maximum position or local sti fness on the way out nor with linear estimates of sti fness based on the entire force/motion history.

Keywords

Haptics and Haptic Interfaces Telerobotics Force and Tactile Sensing Force Control Contact Modelling Virtual Reality and Interfaces

References

Adams, R.J. and Hannaford, B. (2002). Control law design for haptic interfaces to virtualreality . Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on 10(1): 3—13.

Adelstein, B.D. , Begault, D.R. , Anderson, M.R. , and Wenzel E.M. (2003). Sensitivity to haptic-audio asynchrony. In Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces , ACM., pp. 73—76, Vancouver, Canada.

Anderson, R.J. and Spong, M.W. (1989). Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay . Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on 34(5): 494—501.

Calvert, G.A. (2001). Crossmodal processing in the human brain: insights from functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb Cortex 11(12): 1110—1123.

Chapman, C.E. , Bushnell, M.C. , Miron, D. , Duncan, G.H. , and Lund, J.P. (1987). Sensory perception during movement in man. Exp Brain Res 68(3): 516—524.

Chatterjee, S. and Hadi, A.S. (1986). Influential Observations, High Leverage Points, and Outliers in Linear Regression. Statistical Science.

Conditt, M.A. and Mussa-Ivaldi, F.A. (1999). Central representation of time during motor learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(20): 11625—11630.

Ernst, M.O. and Banks, M.S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415(6870): 429—433.

Fitzmaurice, G.M. , Laird, N.M. and Ware, J.M. (2004). Applied Longitudinal Analysis. Wiley, New York.

10.

Flash, T. and Gurevich, I. (1997). Self-Organization, Comutational Maps, and Motor Control, chapter Models of motor adaptation and impedance control in human arm movements, pp. 423—481. Elsevier Science.

11.

Foulkes, A.J. and Miall, R.C. (2000). Adaptation to visual feedback delays in a human manual tracking task. Exp Brain Res 131(1): 101—110.

12.

Fujisaki, W. , Shimojo, S. , Kashino, M. and Nishida, S. (2004). Recalibration of audiovisual simultaneity. Nat Neurosci 7(7): 773—778.

13.

Golub, G.H. and Van Loan, C.F. (1996). Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins Studies in Mathematical Sciences.

14.

Grewal, M.S. and Andrews, A.P. (2001). Kalman Filtering: Theory and Practice Using MATLAB , 2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience .

15.

Hannaford, B. (1989). A design framework for teleoperators with kinesthetic feedback. Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on 5(4): 426—434.

16.

Hirche, S. , Bauer, A. , and Buss, M. (2005). Transparency of haptic telepresence systems with constant time delay. In Control Applications, 2005. Proceedings of 2005 IEEE Conference on, pp. 328—333.

17.

Jones, L.A. and Hunter, I.W. (1990). A perceptual analysis of stiffness. Exp Brain Res 79(1): 150—156.

18.

Kalman, R.E. and Bucy, R.S. (1960). New results in linear filtering and prediction theory. Journal of Basic Engineering ASME Transactions 83: 95—107.

19.

Karniel, A. and Mussa-Ivaldi, F.A. (2003). Sequence, time, or state representation: how does the motor control system adapt to variable environments? Biol Cybern 89(1): 10—21.

20.

Koerding, K.P. , Ku, S. and Wolpert, D.M. (2004).Bayesian integration in force estimation. J Neurophysiol 92(5): 3161— 3165.

21.

Koerding, K.P. and Wolpert, D.M. (2004). Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning . Nature 427(6971): 244—247.

22.

Lackner, J.R. and Dizio, P. (1994). Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. J Neurophysiol 72(1): 299—313.

23.

Levitin, D.J. , MacLean, K. , Mathews, M. , Chu, L. , and Jensen, E. (1999). The perception of cross-modal simultaneity. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems.

24.

Libet, B. , Wright, E.W. , Feinstein, B. and Pearl, D.K. (1979). Subjective referral of the timing for a conscious sensory experience: a functional role for the somatosensory specific projection system in man. Brain 102(1): 193—224.

25.

Massaquoi, S.G. and Slotine, J.-J.E. (1996). The intermediate cerebellum may function as a wave-variable processor. Neurosci Lett 215(1): 60—64.

26.

McCulloch, C.E. , and Searle, S.R. (2001). Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models. Wiley, New York.

27.

Miall, R. , Weir, D. , Wolpert, D.M. and Stein, J. (1993). Is the Cerebellum a Smith Predictor? J Mot Behav 25(3): 203— 216.

28.

Miyazaki, M. , Nozaki, D.M. and Nakajima, Y. (2005). Testing Bayesian models of human coincidence timing . J Neurophysiol 94(1): 395—399.

29.

Mussa-Ivaldi, F.A. , Hogan, N. and Bizzi, E. (1985). Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans. J Neurosci 5(10): 2732—2743.

30.

Niemeyer, G. and Slotine, J.-J.E. (1991). Stable adaptive tele-operation . IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 16(1): 152—162.

31.

Niemeyer, G. and Slotine, J.-J.E. (2004). Telemanipulation with Time Delays. The International Journal of Robotics Research 23(9): 873—890.

32.

Shadmehr, R. and Mussa-Ivaldi, F.A. (1994). Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14(5 Pt 2): 3208—3224.

33.

Shams, L. , Kamitani, Y. and Shimojo, S. (2002). Visual illusion induced by sound. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 14(1): 147—152.

34.

Srinivasan, M.A. and LaMotte, R.H. (1995). Tactual discrimination of softness. J Neurophysiol 73(1): 88—101.

35.

Stone, J.V. , Hunkin, N.M. , Porrill, J. , Wood, R. , Keeler, V. , Beanland, M. , Port, M. and Porter, N.R. (2001). When is now? Perception ofsimultaneity. Proc Biol Sci 268(1462): 31—38.

36.

Violentyev, A. , Shimojo, S. and Shams, L. (2005). Touch-induced visual illusion. Neuroreport 16(10): 1107—1110. A talk about neurological pathways between the audio and visual cortex.

37.

Vogels, I.M.L.C. (2004). Detection oftemporal delays in visual-haptic interfaces . Hum Factors 46(1): 118—134.

38.

Voss, M. , Ingram, J.N. , Haggard, P. and Wolpert, D.M. (2006). Sensorimotor attenuation bycentral motor command signals in the absence of movement. Nat Neurosci 9(1): 26—27.

39.

Wichmann, F.A. and Hill, N.J. (2001a). The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63(8): 1293—1313.

40.

Wichmann, F.A. and Hill, N.J. (2001b). The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling. Percept Psychophys 63(8): 1314—1329.