Effect of skin-transmitted vibration enhancement on vibrotactile perception

Tanaka, Yoshihiro; Ueda, Yuichiro; Sano, Akihito

doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4246-4

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, cognitive aspects might cause differences in tactile sensation. Tanaka et al [1] showed that the sensitivity to vibrotactile stimulation and the change of the sensitivity by increasing the skin vibration varied among participants. Hollins et al [2] demonstrated that perceptual space comprises two dimensions: roughness/smooth and soft/hard for some participants, whereas for other participants, space comprises three dimensions: roughness/smooth, soft/hard, and sticky/slippery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in cognitive processing for roughness rating of fine and coarse textures

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have demonstrated that skin vibration is an important factor affecting the roughness perception of fine textures. For coarse textures, the determining physical factor is much less clear and there are indications that this might be participant-dependent. In this paper, we focused on roughness perception of both coarse and fine textures of different materials (glass particle surfaces and sandpapers). We investigated the relationship between subjective roughness ratings and three physical parameters (skin vibration, friction coefficient, and particle size) within a group of 30 participants. Results of the glass particle surfaces showed both spatial information (particle size) and temporal information (skin vibration) had a high correlation with subjective roughness ratings. The former correlation was slightly but significantly higher than the latter. The results also indicated different weights of temporal information and spatial information for roughness ratings among participants. Roughness ratings of a different material (sandpaper versus glass particles) could be either larger, similar or smaller, indicating differences among individuals. The best way to describe our results is that in their perceptual evaluation of roughness, different individuals weight temporal information, spatial information, and other mechanical properties differently.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in cognitive processing for roughness rating of fine and coarse textures

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Percept sensation in the residual limb also can be generated using vibro-tactile stimulation elicited by mechanical vibrations of the skin (Tanaka et al, 2015 ). Different stimulation parameters (i.e., frequency and amplitude of the vibration) result in different types of sensory information such as proprioception (Kaczmarek et al, 1991 ; Mildren and Bent, 2016 ).…”

Section: Non-invasive Methods Of Sensory Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For those individuals with upper-extremity amputation, a daily normal living activity is no longer possible or it requires additional effort and time. With the aim of restoring their sensory and motor functions, theoretical and technological investigations have been carried out in the field of neuroprosthetic systems. For transmission of sensory feedback, several interfacing modalities including indirect (non-invasive), direct-to-peripheral-nerve (invasive), and cortical stimulation have been applied. Peripheral nerve interfaces demonstrate an edge over the cortical interfaces due to the sensitivity in attaining cortical brain signals. The peripheral nerve interfaces are highly dependent on interface designs and are required to be biocompatible with the nerves to achieve prolonged stability and longevity. Another criterion is the selection of nerves that allows minimal invasiveness and damages as well as high selectivity for a large number of nerve fascicles. In this paper, we review the nerve-machine interface modalities noted above with more focus on peripheral nerve interfaces, which are responsible for provision of sensory feedback. The invasive interfaces for recording and stimulation of electro-neurographic signals include intra-fascicular, regenerative-type interfaces that provide multiple contact channels to a group of axons inside the nerve and the extra-neural-cuff-type interfaces that enable interaction with many axons around the periphery of the nerve. Section Current Prosthetic Technology summarizes the advancements made to date in the field of neuroprosthetics toward the achievement of a bidirectional nerve-machine interface with more focus on sensory feedback. In the Discussion section, the authors propose a hybrid interface technique for achieving better selectivity and long-term stability using the available nerve interfacing techniques.

show abstract