Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T10:46:48.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Task-Driven Extraction of Object Contour by Human Haptics: Part 2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

Susan J. Lederman ,
Roberta L. Klatzky  and
J. D. Balakrishnan
Susan J. Lederman
Affiliation:
Dept. of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario (Canada)
Roberta L. Klatzky
Affiliation:
Dept. of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 (U.S.A.)
J. D. Balakrishnan
Affiliation:
Dept. of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 (U.S.A.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The extraction of contour information from subjects is essential for purposes of grasping and manipulation. We proposed that human haptic exploration of contours, in the absence of vision, would reveal specialized patterns, or “contour exploration procedures,” that are directly related to task goals and intrinsic system capacities. Our general assumptions, method, and initial results were described in Part 1. Part 2 provides an analysis of the relation between contour extraction procedures and processing constraints. These theoretical assumptions are supported by empirical findings, and implications are discussed for issues of importance to robotic exploration and manipulation.

Keywords

Objects contoursHuman hapticsGraspingManipulationTask goals

Information

Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 179 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References*

1.Amirouche, F.M.L., “Equations of motion for two-arm manipulators including the effects of flexibility” Int. J. of Robotics and Automation 2, 77–85 (1987).Google Scholar
2.Chimes, P.R., “Multiple-arm robot control systems” Robotics Age, 9#10, 5–10 (1985).Google Scholar
3.Laroussi, K., Hemami, H., and Goddard, R.E., “Coordination of two planar robots in lifting” IEEE J. Robotics and Automation 4, 77–85 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Goldberg, K.Y. and Bajcsy, R., “Active touch and robot perception” Cognition and Brain Theory II, 2 (1984).Google Scholar
5.Gaston, P.C. and Lozano-Peres, T., “Tactile recognition and localization using object models: The case of polyhedra on a plane” IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-6, 257–265 (1984).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Bajcsy, R. and Hager, G., “Tactile information processing: The bottom up approach” Technical Report MS-CIS-83−38 (Dept. of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania 1983).Google Scholar
7.Bajcsy, R., McCarthy, M. and Trinkle, J.C., “Feeling by grasping” Technical Report MS-CIS-84−34 (Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1983).Google Scholar
8.Stansfield, S., “A robotic perceptual system utilizing passive vision and active touch” Int. J. Robotics Research 7, 138–161 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Browse, R.A., “Feature-based tactile object recognition” IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-9, 779–786 (1987).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Lederman, S.J. and Klatzky, R.L., “Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition” Cognitive Psychology 19, 342–368 (1987).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Gibson, J.J., “The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems” (Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, 1966).Google Scholar
12.Katz, D., “Der aufbau der tastwelt” Zeitschrift fur Psychologie 11, 1–270 (1925).Google Scholar
13.Rosch, E., “Principles of categorization” In: (Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B., Eds.) Cognition and categorization (Erlbaum, NJ, 1978). pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
14.Lederman, S.J. and Klatzky, R.L., “Haptic classification of common objects: Knowledge driven exploration” Cognitive Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
15.Klatzky, R.L., Lederman, S.J. and Reed, C., “Haptic integration of object properties: texture, hardness, and planar contour”. Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance 15, 45–57 (1989).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Klatzky, R.L., McCloskey, B., Doherty, S., Pellegrino, J. and Smith, T., “Knowledge about hand movements and knowledge about objects” J. Motor Behavior 19, 187–213 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Lozano-Perez, T.. “Task planning” In: Robot Motion Planning and Control (MIT Press, MA, 1982). pp. 473–498.Google Scholar
18.Li, Z. and Sastry, S.S., “Task-oriented optimal grasping by multifingered robot hands” IEEEJ. Robotics and Automation 4, 32–43 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Bryant, P. and Raz, I., “Visual and tactual perception of shape by young children” Developmental Psychology 11, 525–526 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Cashdan, S., “Visual and haptic form discrimination under conditions of successive stimulation” J. Experimental Psychology Monograph 76, Pt 1, 221–224 (1968).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Lederman, S.J., Klatzky, R.L., Chataway, C. and Summers, C., “Visual mediation and the haptic recognition of two-dimensional pictures of common objects” Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 54–64 (1990).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Klatzky, R.L., Lederman, S.J. and Metzger, V., “Identifying objects by touch: An ‘expert system’” Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 299–302 (1985).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Davidson, P.W., “Haptic judgments of curvature by blind and sighted humans” J. Experimental Psychology 93, 43–55 (1972).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Davidson, P.W., Abbot, S. and Gershenfeld, J., “Influence of exploration time on haptic and visual matching of complex shape” Perception & Psychophysics 15, 539–543 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Davidson, P.W. and Whitson, T.T., “Haptic equivalence matching of curvature by blind and sighted humans” J. Experimental Psychology 102, 687–690 (1974).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Zinchenko, V.P. and Lomov, B.F., “The functions of hand and eye movements in the process of perception” Problems of Psychology 1, 12–26 (1960).Google Scholar
27.Arbib, M.A., Iberall, T. and Lyons, D., “Coordinated control programs for movements of the hand” In: (Goodwin, A.W. and Darlian-Smith, I., eds), Hand Function and the Neocortex. (Springer, Berlin, 1985). pp. 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. In the present analysis, varimax rotation was performed to spread out the loadings on factors, and the number of factors was limited to those having eigenvalues greater than 1.0.Google Scholar
29. Prior probabilities were adjusted for the different number of trial types per task (because critical-part size was not a variable, Whole Congruence had 4 as compared to 12 in the others). Variables were excluded from entering a function if their F-value was below 4.0.Google Scholar
30.Koutsou, A., “Object exploration using a parallel jaw gripper. Technical Report MS-CIS-88, 48, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
31.Kelso, J.A.S., “On the oscillatory basis of movement” Bull. Psychonomic Society 18, 63 (1981).Google Scholar
32.Schoner, G. and Kelso, J.A.S., “Dynamic pattern generation in behavioral and neural systems” Science 239, 1513–1520 (1988).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Golani, I. and Fentress, J.C., “Early ontogeny of face grooming in mice” Developmental Psychobiology 18, 529–544 (1985).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Koivo, A.J. and Bekey, G.A., “Report of workshop on coordinated multiple robot manipulators: Planning, control and applications” IEEE J. of Robotics and Automation 4, 91–93 (1988).Google Scholar
35.Newell, K.M., Scully, D.M., Tenenbaum, F. and Hardiman, S., “Body scale and the development of prehension” Developmental Psychobiology 22, 1–14 (1989).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed