Comparison of reaction times in response to electrical and Visual Stimulation using a high-speed camera

Recently, information about reaction times in response to perceptive stimulation has been used to develop several applications focused on movement instruction. However, knowledge is still lacking about reaction time related to haptics, especially electrical stimulation. Therefore, in this study we measured and analyzed reaction time in response to electrical and visual stimulation in human participants using a 250 fps high-speed camera. In our experimental process, participants were placed in a separate room and they wore soundproof headphones to shield them from external noise. Subsequently, they conducted reaching tasks involving visual and electrical stimuli. Using a high-speed camera, we recorded participants' hand motions from a top view (thereby focusing on the backs of their hands) and calculated their reaction time via image processing. The results show that reaction time in response to electrical stimulation is approximately 200 ms, which is more than 35% faster than reaction time in response to visual stimulation. Consequently, our results could augment basic knowledge about electrical stimulation in real-time feedback systems. The data obtained may help in electrical application in high-speed use.

[1]  Masatoshi Ishikawa,et al.  Human-robot cooperative task realization using high-speed robot hand system , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM).

[2]  N. Miki,et al.  Electrotactile display using microfabricated micro-needle array , 2015 .

[3]  R. Riener,et al.  Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[4]  Tovi Grossman,et al.  YouMove: enhancing movement training with an augmented reality mirror , 2013, UIST.

[5]  Niilo Konttinen,et al.  The Effects of Augmented Auditory Feedback on Psychomotor Skill Learning in Precision Shooting , 2004 .

[6]  Hiroaki Gomi,et al.  Implicit Visuomotor Processing for Quick Online Reactions Is Robust against Aging , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  A. Chatterjee,et al.  Energetic effects of stimulus intensity on prolonged simple reaction-time performance , 2010, Psychological research.

[8]  J. Shelton,et al.  Comparison between Auditory and Visual Simple Reaction Times , 2010 .

[9]  Pedro Lopes,et al.  Proprioceptive Interaction , 2015, CHI.

[10]  Peter Wolf,et al.  Terminal Feedback Outperforms Concurrent Visual, Auditory, and Haptic Feedback in Learning a Complex Rowing-Type Task , 2013, Journal of motor behavior.

[11]  Katherine J. Kuchenbecker,et al.  Effects of Vibrotactile Feedback on Human Learning of Arm Motions , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[12]  Florian Alt,et al.  Supporting interaction in public space with electrical muscle stimulation , 2013, UbiComp.

[13]  Ryuta Okazaki,et al.  Localization Ability and Polarity Effect of Underwater Electro-Tactile Stimulation , 2014, EuroHaptics.

[14]  M. Granat.  Functional electrical stimulation , 1996 .

[15]  Jun Rekimoto,et al.  PossessedHand: techniques for controlling human hands using electrical muscles stimuli , 2011, CHI.

[16]  Robert L Sainburg,et al.  Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  J. Rosell,et al.  Skin impedance from 1 Hz to 1 MHz , 1988, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[18]  Pedro Lopes,et al.  Affordance++: Allowing Objects to Communicate Dynamic Use , 2015, CHI.

[19]  Peter Wolf,et al.  The effect of haptic guidance and visual feedback on learning a complex tennis task , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.