Tracking Performance with Visual, Auditory, or Electrocutaneous Displays

Abstract

Three groups of ten subjects each performed a unidimensional compensatory tracking task for 30 minutes. Each group received continuous error information feedback either visually, auditorally, or cutaneously. Direction of error was signaled by the side of the body stimulated, magnitude of error was indicated by signal intensity. Intensities of the signals were subjectively matched. Performance was measured by time on target, constant error, absolute error, and root-mean-square error. Analyses of variance for these measures yielded significant differences between display types on all but the root-mean-square measure. A multiple discriminate analysis was performed on these measures and provided two significantly independent dimensions of discrimination. The first dimension was defined as “speed of response,” the second “goodness of performance.” It was concluded that for the particular task used, the auditory and cutaneous displays proved more effective than the visual display.

Time-division multiplexing for myoelectric closed-loop control using electrotactile feedback

“…The aim of this study was to evaluate how the FW duration influences the quality of perception of the feedback information and the ability of the subject to respond to this information with an appropriate control action. As experimental setup, we used a compensatory tracking task that has been routinely applied as the standard test bench for evaluating different aspects of closed-loop human control systems, including visual[ 21 ] as well as electrotactile feedback[ 22 , 23 ].…”

Task-Dependent Adaptations in Closed-Loop Motor Control Based on Electrotactile Feedback

“…We assessed the performance and estimated the model of the human controller in both control modes (position versus velocity) when the feedback was delivered using encoding in stimulation frequency. While most previous studies employed amplitude modulation (e.g., [19]- [22]), frequency modulation was selected since we have shown that it enables superior performance in the same type of closed-loop control task as used in this study [26]. Our a priori expectation was that a human controller adapts to different plant dynamics using electrotactile feedback in the same way it adapts when the feedback is transmitted visually.…”