Auditory contact cues improve performance when grasping augmented and virtual objects with a tool

This experiment investigated the roles of haptic and auditory contact information for the control and execution of reaching to grasp augmented (physical plus graphic) and virtual (graphic only) objects of different sizes using a tool. Haptic contact information was present when grasping augmented objects only. In half of the trials, auditory cues were provided when contact was made between the tip of the tool and the target object. Transport and grasp kinematics, as well as on spatial errors at the end of the movement were examined. Providing auditory cues at contact led to faster movements; moreover, when haptic information was not available (when grasping virtual objects), auditory cues improved spatial accuracy. Movement times increased as the object size decreased for the augmented objects, when haptic information was available, and also for the virtual objects when auditory contact cues were provided, thus following Fitts’ law. However, movement times were similar for all object sizes when neither haptic nor auditory contact information was provided. These results emphasize the importance of contact information when grasping with a tool, and the benefits of auditory contact cues for improving performance.

[1]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. , 1987, Canadian journal of psychology.

[2]  Bin Zheng,et al.  Natural and remote prehension: Kinematic studies of coordination , 2005 .

[3]  Susan J. Lederman,et al.  Integrating multimodal information about surface texture via a probe: relative contributions of haptic and touch-produced sound sources , 2002, Proceedings 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. HAPTICS 2002.

[4]  Bin Zheng,et al.  Kinematics of Reaching and Grasping with a Tool , 2007 .

[5]  M. Jeannerod The timing of natural prehension movements. , 1984, Journal of motor behavior.

[6]  Maurizio Gentilucci,et al.  Grasping an object naturally or with a tool: are these tasks guided by a common motor representation? , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  E. Reed The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[8]  S. Chieffi,et al.  The role of proprioception in the control of prehension movements: a kinematic study in a peripherally deafferented patient and in normal subjects , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  D. Gouma,et al.  Sensitivity of laparoscopic dissectors. What can you feel? , 1999, Surgical endoscopy.

[10]  W. Sjoerdsma,et al.  Sensitivity of laparoscopic dissectors , 1999, Surgical Endoscopy.

[11]  D. Elliott,et al.  The influence of visual target and limb information on manual aiming. , 1988, Canadian journal of psychology.

[12]  Mandayam A. Srinivasan,et al.  The Effect of Auditory Cues on the Haptic Perception of Stiffness in Virtual Environments , 1997, Dynamic Systems and Control.

[13]  S. Lederman Auditory Texture Perception , 1979, Perception.

[14]  Mihaela A. Zahariev,et al.  Grasping at ‘thin air’: multimodal contact cues for reaching and grasping , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.