An investigation into manual asymmetries in grasp behavior and kinematics during an object manipulation task

2011 ◽  
Vol 215 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Seegelke ◽  
Charmayne M. L. Hughes ◽  
Thomas Schack
Keyword(s):  
Object Manipulation ◽  
Manual Asymmetries ◽  
Manipulation Task

Impact of task difficulty on gaze behavior in a sequential object manipulation task

2017 ◽  
Vol 235 (11) ◽  
pp. 3479-3486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Kurz ◽  
Mathias Hegele ◽  
Mathias Reiser ◽  
Jörn Munzert
Keyword(s):  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Object Manipulation ◽  
Gaze Behavior ◽  
Manipulation Task

scholarly journals Word-based categorization in 14 to 16 month-old infants: Evidence from a Slavic language

Psihologija ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Slavica Tutnjevic ◽  
Sinisa Lakic
Keyword(s):  
Object Manipulation ◽  
Chance Level ◽  
Slavic Language ◽  
Perceptual Similarity ◽  
Similar Shape ◽  
Novel Objects ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Manipulation Task ◽  
Unknown Objects

We investigate early word-based categorization by testing one sample of infants at the ages of 14 and 16 months using an object manipulation task. Specifically, we investigate the facilitating effect of labeling on: a) categorization of unknown objects with a shared label and a similar shape; b) categorization of unknown objects with a shared label, but no perceptual similarity. The results indicate that an average infant can categorize novel objects with a similar shape and a shared label starting at 16 months of age. Categorization of novel objects with a shared label but no perceptual similarity is at chance level at both ages. These results confirm and extend previous research findings to a new language.

scholarly journals Viewpoint Usability for Desktop Augmented Reality

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 33-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seokhee Jeon ◽  
Hyeongseop Shim ◽  
Gerard J. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Task Performance ◽  
Depth Perception ◽  
Object Manipulation ◽  
Head Mounted Display ◽  
Usability Problems ◽  
Head Mounted Displays ◽  
Hand Eye Coordination ◽  
Manipulation Task ◽  
Perceived Usability

In this paper, we have investigated the comparative usability among three different viewing configurations of augmented reality (AR) system that uses a desktop monitor instead of a head mounted display. In many cases, due to operational or cost reasons, the use of head mounted displays may not be viable. Such a configuration is bound to cause usability problems because of the mismatch in the user's proprioception, scale, hand eye coordination, and the reduced 3D depth perception. We asked a pool of subjects to carry out an object manipulation task in three different desktop AR set ups. We measured the subject's task performance and surveyed for the perceived usability and preference. Our results indicated that placing a fixed camera in the back of the user was the best option for convenience and attaching a camera on the user�s head for task performance. The results should provide a valuable guide for designing desktop augmented reality systems without head mounted displays

scholarly journals Fast and accurate edge orientation processing during object manipulation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Andrew Pruszynski ◽  
J. Randall Flanagan ◽  
Roland S. Johansson
Keyword(s):  
Object Manipulation ◽  
Spatial Processing ◽  
Processing Capacity ◽  
Critical Aspect ◽  
Dexterous Manipulation ◽  
Tactile Information ◽  
Edge Orientation ◽  
Manipulation Task ◽  
Tactile System ◽  
Better Than

AbstractQuickly and accurately extracting information about a touched object’s orientation is a critical aspect of dexterous object manipulation. However, the speed and acuity of tactile edge orientation processing with respect to the fingertips as reported in previous perceptual studies appear inadequate in these respects. Here we directly establish the tactile system’s capacity to process edge-orientation information during dexterous manipulation. Participants extracted tactile information about edge orientation very quickly, using it within 200 ms of first touching the object. Participants were also strikingly accurate. With edges spanning the entire fingertip, edge-orientation resolution was better than 3° in our object manipulation task, which is several times better than reported in previous perceptual studies. Performance remained impressive even with edges as short as 2 mm, consistent with our ability to precisely manipulate very small objects. Taken together, our results radically redefine the spatial processing capacity of the tactile system.

Cooperation of robotic manipulators using non‐model‐based multiple impedance control

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 549-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Ali A. Moosavian ◽  
Hadi R. Ashtiani
Keyword(s):  
Error Analysis ◽  
Impedance Control ◽  
Object Manipulation ◽  
Tracking Performance ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Model Based ◽  
On Line ◽  
Cooperating Manipulators ◽  
Manipulation Task ◽  
Practical Implications

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to present the non‐model‐based multiple impedance control (NMIC) law for object manipulation tasks, which can be implemented with reasonable limited on‐line computations.Design/methodology/approachThe multiple impedance control (MIC) is a model‐based algorithm that enforces a designated impedance on all cooperating manipulators, and the manipulated object itself. In this paper, the MIC law is modified to be implemented without using system dynamics. Therefore, this modified MIC law is a quick and more realistic algorithm for implementation in cooperating robotic systems, and so is called NMIC. Developing the NMIC law, error analysis shows that under the NMIC law all participating manipulators, and the manipulated object exhibit the same designated impedance behavior. Next, the proposed NMIC law is applied on an object manipulation task with three cooperating PUMA 560 manipulators while two of them are equipped with a remote compliant centre.FindingsDeveloping the NMIC law, error analysis shows that under the NMIC law all participating manipulators, and the manipulated object exhibit the same designated impedance behavior. The obtained results show good tracking performance even in the presence of impacts due to contact with an obstacle, and also system flexibility.Practical implicationsThe obtained results show good tracking performance even in the presence of impacts due to contact with an obstacle, and also system flexibility. These results reveal the merits of NMIC law as a non‐model‐based algorithm for object manipulation tasks, which can be implemented with reasonable limited on‐line computations.Originality/valueThe proposed NMIC law is applied on an object manipulation task with three cooperating PUMA 560 manipulators while two of them are equipped with a remote compliant centre.

End-State Comfort in Bimanual Object Manipulation

2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Weigelt ◽  
Wilfried Kunde ◽  
Wolfgang Prinz
Keyword(s):  
Present Experiment ◽  
Action Planning ◽  
Object Manipulation ◽  
Movement Planning ◽  
Manipulation Task ◽  
Interaction Costs ◽  
Motor Actions ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Action Goals

The present experiment investigated the sensitivity for end-state comfort in a bimanual object manipulation task. Participants were required to simultaneously reach for two bars and to place the objects' ends into two targets on the table. The design of the experiment allowed to dissociate the relative roles of initial means (e.g., the selection of grips) and final postures (e.g., the anticipation of end-states). The question of interest was whether affording different grip patterns for the two hands would introduce a bias away from reaching end-state comfort. Results revealed a strong sensitivity for end-state comfort, independent of the required grip patterns. In particular, end-state comfort was preferred even if this meant selecting different initial means (i.e., different grips) for the two hands. Hence, end-state oriented action planning appears to dominate interaction costs that may result from motor-related, intermanual interference. We infer that movement planning is constrained by action goals (e.g., a comfortable end-posture for both hands), but largely unaffected by the type of motor actions necessary to achieve these goals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document