Efficient Evaluation of Coding Strategies for Transcutaneous Language Communication

Communication of natural language via the skin has seen renewed interest with the advent of mobile devices and wearable technology. Efficient evaluation of candidate haptic encoding algorithms remains a significant challenge. We present 4 algorithms along with our methods for evaluation, which are based on discriminability, learnability, and generalizability. Advantageously, mastery of an extensive vocabulary is not required. Haptic displays used 16 or 32 vibrotactile actuators arranged linearly or as a grid on the arm. In Study 1, a two-alternative, forced-choice protocol tested the ability of 10 participants to detect differences in word pairs encoded by 3 acoustic algorithms: Frequency Decomposition (FD), Dominant Spectral Peaks (DSP), and Autoencoder (AE). Detection specificity was not different among the algorithms, but sensitivity was significantly worse with AE than with FD or DSP. Study 2 compared the performance of 16 participants randomized to DSP vs a phoneme-based algorithm (PH) using a custom video game for training and testing. The PH group performed significantly better at all test stages, and showed better recognition and retention of words along with evidence of generalizability to new words.

[1]  Ali Israr,et al.  Controller design and consonantal contrast coding using a multi-finger tactual display. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Ali Israr,et al.  Coding Tactile Symbols for Phonemic Communication , 2018, CHI.

[3]  C M Reed,et al.  Research on the Tadoma method of speech communication. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Andrew K. Przybylski,et al.  A Motivational Model of Video Game Engagement , 2010 .

[5]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  Comparison of multichannel tactile aids and multichannel cochlear implants in children with profound hearing impairments. , 1995, The American journal of otology.

[6]  Luigi Salmaso,et al.  The permutation testing approach: a review , 2010 .

[7]  D. Oller Tactile Aids for the Hearing Impaired: An Overview , 1995 .

[8]  Ali Israr,et al.  Tactile brush: drawing on skin with a tactile grid display , 2011, CHI.

[9]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Word Segmentation as General Chunking , 2011, CoNLL.

[10]  P J Blamey,et al.  A comparison of Tactaid II+ and Tactaid 7 use by adults with a profound hearing impairment. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[11]  Lori L. Holt,et al.  Learning Foreign Sounds in an Alien World: Videogame Training Improves Non-Native Speech Categorization , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  P L Brooks,et al.  Continuing evaluation of the Queen's University tactile vocoder II: Identification of open set sentences and tracking narrative. , 1986, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  Neil A. Macmillan Signal Detection Theory , 2002 .

[14]  I. Elamvazuthi,et al.  Voice Recognition Algorithms using Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficient (MFCC) and Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) Techniques , 2010, ArXiv.

[15]  P L Brooks,et al.  Evaluation of a tactile vocoder for work recognition. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks , 2006, Science.