Objective: The aim of this project was to compare texture discrimination when both touch and vision were perturbed. Background: Texture discrimination is important in the workplace. How textures are identified with the finger and with instruments when vision is magnified with lenses or video cameras is unclear. Method: Sandpaper was explored with the index finger or a metal instrument (hemostat), using normal or magnified vision. The forces generated during exploration were measured, and participants rated surface roughness. Results: With the finger, the perception of roughness was unaffected with magnification; with the instrument, magnified surfaces were perceived as rougher (p < .05). Forces during finger exploration were unaffected by magnification; forces with the instrument increased under magnification (p < .05). Conclusion: Visual characteristics of the working field can influence the exploration and perception of materials. With the finger, mechanoreceptors that directly detect textures are activated, and with the instrument, receptors sensitive to vibrations are stimulated. Application: The higher forces produced when using instruments under magnification could lead to material damage. Attenuated perception of texture when exploring with tools may lead to difficulty in accurate touch perception. This could create problems in industrial tasks such as grading wool or identifying surface imperfections on manufactured materials, as well as in clinical settings such as dentistry or surgery in which instruments are used during tissue identification.
References
1.
Brydges, R., Carnahan, H., & Dubrowski, A. (2005). Surface exploration using laparoscopic surgical instruments: The perception of surface roughness. Ergonomics , 48, 874-894.
2.
Drury, C.G., & Sinclair, M.A. (1983). Human and machine performance in an inspection task. Human Factors, 25, 391-399.
3.
Ernst, M.O., & Banks, M.S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429-433.
4.
Goodale, M.A., & Milner, A.D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action . Trends in Neuroscience, 15, 20-25.
5.
Guest, S., & Spence, C. (2003). Haptic dominance in speeded discrimination of textures, Experimental Brain Research, 150, 201-207.
6.
Heller, M.A. (1982). Visual and tactual texture perception: Intersensory cooperation. Perception and Psychophysics, 31, 339-344.
7.
Johansson, R.S., & Westling, G. (1984). Roles of glabrous skin receptors and sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when lifting rougher or more slippery objects. Experimental Brain Research, 56, 550-564.
8.
Johnson, K.O. (2001). The roles and functions of cutaneous mechanoreceptors . Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 455-461.
9.
Johnson, K.O., & Yoshioka, T. (2002). Neural mechanisms of haptic form and texture perception . In R. J. Nelson (Ed.), The somatosensory system: Deciphering the brain's own body image (pp. 77-97). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
10.
Klatzky, R.L., & Lederman, S.J. (1999). Haptic roughness perception with a rigid link interposed between skin and surface. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 591-607.
11.
Kleiner, B.M., Drury, C.G., & Chrisopher, G.L. (1987). Sensitivity of human tactile inspection. Human Factors, 29, 1-7.
12.
Lederman, S.J. (1974). Haptic roughness of grooved surfaces: The touching process and effects of macro- and microsurface structure. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 385-395.
Lederman, S.J. (1983). Tactual roughness perception: Spatial and temporal determinants. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 498-511.
15.
Lederman, S.J., &Abbott, S.G. (1981). Texture perception: Studies of intersensory organization using a discrepancy paradigm, and visual versus tactual psychophysics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 902-915.
16.
Lederman, S.J., Klatzky, R.L., Hamilton, C.L., & Ramsay, G.I. (1999). Perceiving roughness via a rigid probe: Psychophysical effects of exploration speed and mode of touch. Haptics-e, 1. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://www.haptics-e.org/Vol_01/index.html
17.
Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 862-869.
18.
Munz, Y., Moorthy, K., Bann, S., Shah, J., Ivanova, S., & Darzi, S.A. (2004). Ceiling effect in technical skills of surgical residents. American Journal of Surgery, 188, 294-300.
19.
Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
20.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
21.
Schumacher, E.H., Seymour, T., Glass, J.M., Lauber, E.J., Kieras, D.E., & Meyer, D.E. (1997, November). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, PA.
22.
Smith A.M. (1994). Some shear facts and pure friction related to roughness discrimination and the cutaneous control of grasping. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 72, 583-590.
23.
Smith, A.M., Chapman, C.E., Deslandes, M., Langlais, J.S., & Thibodeau, M.P. (2002). Role of friction and tangential force variation in the subjective scaling of haptic roughness. Experimental Brain Research, 144, 211-223.
24.
Stock, S.R. (1991). Workplace ergonomic factors and the development of musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper limbs: A meta analysis . American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 19, 87-107.
25.
Thomas, G., Johnson, L., Dow, S., & Stanford, C. (2001). The design and testing of a force feedback simulator . Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 64, 53-64.
26.
Tranaeus, S., Shi, X.-Q., & Angmar-Mansson, B. (2005). Caries risk assessment: Methods available to clinicians for caries detection. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 33, 265-273.
27.
Viikari-Juntura, E., Kurppa, K., Kuosma, E., Huuskonen, M., Kuorinka, I., Ketola, R., et al. (1991). Prevalence of epicondylitis and elbow pain in the meat-processing industry. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 17, 38-45.
