Perceiving Surface Roughness Through a Probe: Effects of Applied Force and Probe Diameter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current paper constitutes a continuation of our psychophysical research on perceiving the surface roughness of raised-dot surfaces via a rigid probe. Here we investigated the perceptual consequences of varying applied force (Experiment 1) and probe diameter (Experiment 2). A passive-touch mode was used to effect contact between probe and surface. All psychophysical roughness functions were best fit by quadratic equations. Increasing force resulted in increased roughness estimates, without a corresponding shift in the peak position of the function along the interelement-spacing axis (Experiment 1). Perceived roughness decreased overall with increasing probe diameter for the narrower interelement spacings; however, perceived roughness increased overall with increasing probe diameter for the wider interelement spacings. This reversal was explained by a corresponding shift in the position of the peaks of the psychophysical functions toward the wider end of the interelement-spacing axis as probe diameter increased (Experiment 2). Implications for the design of haptic interfaces for virtual environments are also considered. In the last couple of years, we have been reporting the results of a comprehensive research program investigating how people perceive surface texture via a rigid probe. The initial and current stage of this research program involves conducting psychophysical experiments to determine a small number of critical parameters that will describe how vibration — induced by the interaction between surface and rigid probe, and passed to the skin — leads to an internal representation of surface roughness. In the second stage of this research program, we intend to develop a model that describes texture perception from a probe as the transition from mechanical interactions between probe tip and surface to perceptual responses. In the third stage of the program, we will use the vibration based model to create virtual textures with a haptic-interface by delivering vibratory forces to the fingertip. We begin by reviewing the psychophysical literature on perceiving roughness via the bare finger versus a rigid probe as intermediary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".