Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
194 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Spatial Summation of Localized Pressure for Haptic Sensory Prostheses (2404.02565v1)

Published 3 Apr 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: A host of medical conditions, including amputations, diabetes, stroke, and genetic disease, result in loss of touch sensation. Because most types of sensory loss have no pharmacological treatment or rehabilitative therapy, we propose a haptic sensory prosthesis that provides substitutive feedback. The wrist and forearm are compelling locations for feedback due to available skin area and not occluding the hands, but have reduced mechanoreceptor density compared to the fingertips. Focusing on localized pressure as the feedback modality, we hypothesize that we can improve on prior devices by invoking a wider range of stimulus intensity using multiple points of pressure to evoke spatial summation, which is the cumulative perceptual experience from multiple points of stimuli. We conducted a preliminary perceptual test to investigate this idea and found that just noticeable difference is reduced with two points of pressure compared to one, motivating future work using spatial summation in sensory prostheses.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (9)
  1. M. Szczot, J. Liljencrantz, N. Ghitani, A. Barik, R. Lam, J. H. Thompson, D. Bharucha-Goebel, D. Saade, A. Necaise, S. Donkervoort, et al., “Piezo2 mediates injury-induced tactile pain in mice and humans,” Science translational medicine, vol. 10, no. 462, p. eaat9892, 2018.
  2. L. K. Case et al., “Innocuous pressure sensation requires a-type afferents but not functional piezo2 channels in humans,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 657, 2021.
  3. J. P. Clark and M. K. O’Malley, “Defining allowable stimulus ranges for position and force controlled cutaneous cues,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 353–364, 2023.
  4. S. Kodali, B. B. Vuong, T. C. Bulea, A. T. Chesler, C. G. Bönnemann, and A. M. Okamura, “Wearable sensory substitution for proprioception via deep pressure,” in IEEE World Haptics Conference, 2023, pp. 286–292.
  5. J. D. Greenspan, M. Thomadaki, and S. L. McGillis, “Spatial summation of perceived pressure, sharpness and mechanically evoked cutaneous pain,” Somatosensory & Motor Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 107–112, 1997.
  6. H. Tan, M. Srinivasan, B. Eberman, and B. Cheng, “Human factors for the design of force-reflecting haptic interfaces,” Proc. ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Dynamic Systems and Control, vol. 55, 1994.
  7. R. Polianskis, T. Graven-Nielsen, and L. Arendt-Nielsen, “Spatial and temporal aspects of deep tissue pain assessed by cuff algometry,” Pain, vol. 100, no. 1-2, pp. 19–26, 2002.
  8. M. A. García-Pérez, “Forced-choice staircases with fixed step sizes: asymptotic and small-sample properties,” Vision Res., vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 1861–1881, 1998.
  9. K. Wojna, O. Georgiou, D. Beattie, W. Frier, M. Wright, and C. Lutteroth, “An exploration of just noticeable differences in mid-air haptics,” in IEEE World Haptics Conference, 2023, pp. 410–416.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets