MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213775499 · doi:10.1115/imece2000-2413

Perceiving Surface Roughness Through a Probe: Effects of Applied Force and Probe Diameter

2000· article· en· W3213775499 on OpenAlexaff
Susan J. Lederman, Roberta L. Klatzky, Cheryl Hamilton, Molly Grindley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface finishSurface roughnessHaptic technologyPosition (finance)Surface (topology)Materials sciencePerceptionOpticsAcousticsComputer scienceSimulationPhysicsMathematicsGeometryComposite materialPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207