Comparing the Exteroceptive Feedback of Normal Stress, Skin Stretch, and Vibrotactile Stimulation for Restitution of Static Events

Abstract

This paper investigates the effectiveness of three types of haptic feedback: normal stress, tangential force, and vibrotactile stimulation. Modern prosthetic limbs currently available on the market do not provide a wide range of sensory information to amputees, forcing amputees to mainly rely on visual attention when manipulating objects. We aim to develop a haptic system that can convey information to the central nervous system (CNS) through haptic feedback. To this end, we aim to find out which type of feedback performs best under static conditions, so that it can be used to restore a sense of grasping force to amputees. We tested the three main stimulation methods by inputting a series of five force magnitudes to each haptic device, so that the device applied the corresponding feedback to the participants' finger pads. The participants then pressed on a force sensor, with the goal of applying the same level of force to a force sensor as they believed the haptic device had initially conveyed to them via their finger pads. While the subjects pressed on the force sensor, the haptic device applied a level of feedback to their forearms that corresponded to the pressure they were applying to the sensor. These tests provided fifteen numerical data per subject and a total of 180 trials for all twelve subjects. The end results indicate that even though all the stimulation methods provided a sufficient level of feedback, normal stress seems more effective than either tangential force or vibrotactile stimulation, at conveying the sense of pressure to the finger pad.

Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review

“…The discriminating values of amplitude thresholds differ by prostheses and interface locations. Several sensory substitutions have been achieved through vibro-tactile stimulation, which includes the mapping of sensation from the prosthetic hand to the phantom hand for transradial amputees (Antfolk et al, 2013b ; Papetti et al, 2016 ), the increase and decrease of texture roughness feeling on fingers (Asano et al, 2015 ), the sensation through stretching of the skin (Wheeler et al, 2010 ; Motamedi et al, 2017 ), the improvement in grasping force (Chatterjee et al, 2008 ; Cipriani et al, 2008 , 2014 ; Saunders and Vijayakumar, 2011 ; Montagnani et al, 2015 ; Witteveen et al, 2015 ), the evoked sense of proprioception by the vibrations of a tendon (Thyrion and Roll, 2010 ), an object manipulation (Rombokas et al, 2013 ), the sense of embodiment (D'Alonzo et al, 2015 ; Ko et al, 2015 ), and the sensation on the surface of the skin (Kangas et al, 2017 ). The early devices were heavy and energy consuming.…”

Haptic vs. Visual Neurofeedback for Brain Training: A Proof-of-Concept Study

“…3), which is powered using four 2.85 Ah AA batteries connected in series and can function for about 6.5 hours without a recharge. We selected vibrotactile feedback due to its smaller form factor and ability to quickly alert the users in response to external events [21]. In addition, the following points were considered while designing the haptic device: For the motors, these states can be customized for each user by selecting either 100% (50%) or 70% (35%) (of the motor nominal intensity) as maximum (half ).…”

An Instrument for Remote Kissing and Engineering Measurement of Its Communication Effects Including Modified Turing Test

“…1 shows a pair of the Kissenger machines. This research focuses on perpendicular force stimulation on the skin, as it is the most effective and preferable type of stimulation in conveying pressure sensations compared to tangential force and vibrotactile stimulation [32]. The kissing machine is designed to enhance intimacy and emotional connection in digital communication, allowing families and friends to physically interact with each other over the Internet.…”