Haptic search for movable parts

Myrthe A. Plaisier, Krista E. Overvliet

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

Uittreksel

How do we know that we are touching 1 single object instead of 2 different ones? An important cue is movability: When different sources of input can move independently, it is likely that they belong to different objects or that the object consists of movable parts. We hypothesize that the haptic feature "movability" is used for making this differentiation and we expect movability to be detected efficiently. We investigated this hypothesis by using a haptic search task. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to press down on piano-like keys and respond whether 1 key was movable while the rest were static or the other way around (detection only). Search strategy was determined by comparing performance of 4 response time models. This showed that the search slope for the target absent and present trials was the same (detection without localization model). In Experiment 2, we asked participants to localize the target, in order to investigate whether localization is an extra processing step. In this case our localization after detection model described the data best. This suggests that the target was detected independent of localization. To our knowledge this is the first time such a search strategy has been reported in haptic search, and it highlights the special role of the detection of movability. (PsycINFO Database Record

Originele taal-2Engels
Pagina's (van-tot)741-748
Aantal pagina's8
TijdschriftJournal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance
Volume43
Nummer van het tijdschrift4
DOI's
StatusGepubliceerd - apr 2017
Extern gepubliceerdJa

Vingerafdruk

Reaction Time
Cues
Haptics
Localization
Experiment

Citeer dit

@article{ed78e762eebf4a0f91f515b0b80710a1,
title = "Haptic search for movable parts",
abstract = "How do we know that we are touching 1 single object instead of 2 different ones? An important cue is movability: When different sources of input can move independently, it is likely that they belong to different objects or that the object consists of movable parts. We hypothesize that the haptic feature {"}movability{"} is used for making this differentiation and we expect movability to be detected efficiently. We investigated this hypothesis by using a haptic search task. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to press down on piano-like keys and respond whether 1 key was movable while the rest were static or the other way around (detection only). Search strategy was determined by comparing performance of 4 response time models. This showed that the search slope for the target absent and present trials was the same (detection without localization model). In Experiment 2, we asked participants to localize the target, in order to investigate whether localization is an extra processing step. In this case our localization after detection model described the data best. This suggests that the target was detected independent of localization. To our knowledge this is the first time such a search strategy has been reported in haptic search, and it highlights the special role of the detection of movability. (PsycINFO Database Record",
keywords = "Adult, Fingers, Humans, Motor Activity/physiology, Psychomotor Performance/physiology, Space Perception/physiology, Touch Perception/physiology, Young Adult",
author = "Plaisier, {Myrthe A.} and Overvliet, {Krista E.}",
note = "(c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1037/xhp0000345",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "741--748",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance",
issn = "0096-1523",
publisher = "American Psychological Association",
number = "4",

}

Haptic search for movable parts. / Plaisier, Myrthe A.; Overvliet, Krista E.

In: Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 43, Nr. 4, 04.2017, blz. 741-748.

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Haptic search for movable parts

AU - Plaisier, Myrthe A.

AU - Overvliet, Krista E.

N1 - (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

PY - 2017/4

Y1 - 2017/4

N2 - How do we know that we are touching 1 single object instead of 2 different ones? An important cue is movability: When different sources of input can move independently, it is likely that they belong to different objects or that the object consists of movable parts. We hypothesize that the haptic feature "movability" is used for making this differentiation and we expect movability to be detected efficiently. We investigated this hypothesis by using a haptic search task. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to press down on piano-like keys and respond whether 1 key was movable while the rest were static or the other way around (detection only). Search strategy was determined by comparing performance of 4 response time models. This showed that the search slope for the target absent and present trials was the same (detection without localization model). In Experiment 2, we asked participants to localize the target, in order to investigate whether localization is an extra processing step. In this case our localization after detection model described the data best. This suggests that the target was detected independent of localization. To our knowledge this is the first time such a search strategy has been reported in haptic search, and it highlights the special role of the detection of movability. (PsycINFO Database Record

AB - How do we know that we are touching 1 single object instead of 2 different ones? An important cue is movability: When different sources of input can move independently, it is likely that they belong to different objects or that the object consists of movable parts. We hypothesize that the haptic feature "movability" is used for making this differentiation and we expect movability to be detected efficiently. We investigated this hypothesis by using a haptic search task. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to press down on piano-like keys and respond whether 1 key was movable while the rest were static or the other way around (detection only). Search strategy was determined by comparing performance of 4 response time models. This showed that the search slope for the target absent and present trials was the same (detection without localization model). In Experiment 2, we asked participants to localize the target, in order to investigate whether localization is an extra processing step. In this case our localization after detection model described the data best. This suggests that the target was detected independent of localization. To our knowledge this is the first time such a search strategy has been reported in haptic search, and it highlights the special role of the detection of movability. (PsycINFO Database Record

KW - Adult

KW - Fingers

KW - Humans

KW - Motor Activity/physiology

KW - Psychomotor Performance/physiology

KW - Space Perception/physiology

KW - Touch Perception/physiology

KW - Young Adult

U2 - 10.1037/xhp0000345

DO - 10.1037/xhp0000345

M3 - Article

C2 - 28182478

VL - 43

SP - 741

EP - 748

JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance

JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance

SN - 0096-1523

IS - 4

ER -