Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

A psychophysical evaluation of haptic controllers: viscosity perception of soft environments

  • Hyoung Il Son (a1), Hoeryong Jung (a1), Doo Yong Lee (a2), Jang Ho Cho (a3) and Heinrich H. Bülthoff (a4) (a5)...
Summary
SUMMARY

In this paper, human viscosity perception in haptic teleoperation systems is thoroughly analyzed. An accurate perception of viscoelastic environmental properties such as viscosity is a critical ability in several contexts, such as telesurgery, telerehabilitation, telemedicine, and soft-tissue interaction. We study and compare the ability to perceive viscosity from the standpoint of detection and discrimination using several relevant control methods for the teleoperator. The perception-based method, which was proposed by the authors to enhance the operator's kinesthetic perception, is compared with the conventional transparency-based control method for the teleoperation system. The fidelity-based method, which is a primary method among perception-centered control schemes in teleoperation, is also studied. We also examine the necessity and impact of the remote-site force information for each of the methods. The comparison is based on a series of psychophysical experiments measuring absolute threshold and just noticeable difference for all conditions. The results clearly show that the perception-based method enhances both detection and discrimination abilities compare with other control methods. The results further show that the fidelity-based method confers a better discrimination ability than the transparency-based method, although this is not true with respect to detection ability. In addition, we show that force information improves viscosity detection for all control methods, as predicted from previous theoretical analysis, but improves the discrimination threshold only for the perception-based method.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author. E-mail: hyoungil.son@kaist.ac.kr, hyoungil.son@gmail.com
References
Hide All
1.van der Meijden O. and Schijven M., “The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: A current review,” Surg. Endosc. 23 (6), 11801190 (2009).
2.Hill J., Holst P., Jensen J., Goldman J., Gorfu Y. and Ploeger D., “Telepresence interface with applications to microsurgery and surgical simulation,” Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 50, 96102 (1998).
3.Tendick F., Sastry S., Fearing R. and Cohn M., “Applications of micromechatronics in minimally invasive surgery,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 3 (1), 3442 (1998).
4.Heijnsdijk E., Pasdeloup A., Van der Pijl A., Dankelman J. and Gouma D., “The influence of force feedback and visual feedback in grasping tissue laparoscopicauy,” Surg. Endosc. 18 (6), 980985 (2004).
5.Jones L. A., “Kinesthetic Sensing,” In: Human and Machine Haptics (Cutkosky M., Howe R., Salisbury K. and Srinivasan M., eds.) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000).
6.Jones L. and Hunter I., “A perceptual analysis of viscosity,” Exp. Brain Res. 94 (2), 343351 (1993).
7.Huang F., Patton J. and Mussa-Ivaldi F., “Manual skill generalization enhanced by negative viscosity,” J. Neurophysiol. 104 (4), 20082019 (2010).
8.Steele C., Van Lieshout P. and Goff D., “The rheology of liquids: A comparison of clinicians subjective impressions and objective measurement,” Dysphagia. 18 (3), 182195 (2003).
9.Lederman S., Klatzky R., Tong C. and Hamilton C., “The perceived roughness of resistive virtual textures: II. Effects of varying viscosity with a force-feedback device,” ACM Trans. Appl. Perception 3 (1), 1530 (2006).
10.Sheridan T., “Telerobotics,” Automatica 25 (4), 487507 (1989).
11.Hokayem P. and Spong M., “Bilateral teleoperation: An historical survey,” Automatica 42 (12), 20352057 (2006).
12.Lawrence D., “Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 9 (5), 624637 (1993).
13.Hashtrudi-Zaad K. and Salcudean S., “Analysis of control architectures for teleoperation systems with impedance/admittance master and slave manipulators,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 20 (6), 419445 (2001).
14.Çavusoglu M., Sherman A. and Tendick F., “Design of bilateral teleoperation controllers for haptic exploration and telemanipulation of soft environments,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 18 (4), 641647 (2002).
15.De Gersem G., Van Brussel H. and Tendick F., “Reliable and enhanced stiffness perception in soft-tissue telemanipulation,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 24 (10), 805822 (2005).
16.Malysz P. and Sirouspour S., “Nonlinear and filtered force/position mappings in bilateral teleoperation with application to enhanced stiffness discrimination,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 25 (5), 11341149 (2009).
17.Botturi D., Vicentini M., Righele M. and Secchi C., “Perception-centric force scaling in bilateral teleoperation,” Mechatronics 20 (7), 802811 (2010).
18.Son H. I., Bhattacharjee T. and Hashimoto H., “Enhancement in operator's perception of soft tissues and its experimental validation for scaled teleoperation systems,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 16 (6), 10961109 (2011).
19.Son H. I., Bhattacharjee T. and Hashimoto H., “Effect of impedance-shaping on perception of soft tissues in macro-micro teleoperation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 59 (8), 32733285 (2012).
20.Sun Y. and Nelson B., “Biological cell injection using an autonomous microrobotic system,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 21 (10–11), 861868 (2002).
21.Dhruv N. and Tendick F., “Frequency Dependence of Compliance Contrast Detection,” In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (Orlando, FL, 2000) pp. 10871093.
22.Sherman A., Çavusoglu M. and Tendick F., “Comparison of Teleoperator Control Architectures for Palpation Task,” In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environments and Teleoperator Systems (Orlando, FL, 2000) pp. 12611268.
23.Son H. I., Bhattacharjee T., Jung H. and Lee D. Y., “Psychophysical Evaluation of Control Scheme Designed for Optimal Kinesthetic Perception in Scaled Teleoperation,” In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Anchorage, AK, 2010) pp. 53465351.
24.Son H. I., Franchi A., Chuang L., Kim J., Bülthoff H. and Giordano P. Robuffo, “Human-Centered Design and Evaluation of Haptic Cueing for Teleoperation of Multiple Mobile Robots,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 43 (2), 597609 (2013).
25.Son H. I., Bhattacharjee T. and Lee D. Y., “Estimation of environmental force for the haptic interface of robotic surgery,” Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 6 (2), 221230 (2010).
26.Gescheider G., Psychophysics: The Fundamentals (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1997).
27.Keppel G. and Wickens T., Design and Analysis (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2007).
28.Diolaiti N., Niemeyer G., Barbagli F. and Salisbury J., “Stability of haptic rendering: Discretization, quantization, time delay, and coulomb effects,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 22 (2), 256268 (2006).
29.Belegundu A. and Chandrupatla T., Optimization Concepts and Applications in Engineering (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999).
30.Haykin S., Active Network Theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1970).
31.Woo H., Kim W., Ahn W., Lee D., and Yi S., “Haptic interface of the KAIST-Ewha colonoscopy simulator II,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 12 (6), 746753 (2008).
32.Beauregard G., Srinivasan M. and Durlach N., “The Manual Resolution of Viscosity and Mass,” In: Proceedings of the ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division, vol. DSC-57-2, (Ann Arbor, MI, 1995) pp. 657662.
33.MacFarlane M., Rosen J., Hannaford B., Pellegrini C. and Sinanan M., “Force-feedback grasper helps restore sense of touch in minimally invasive surgery,” J. Gastrointestinal Surg. 3 (3), 278285 (1999).
34.Tavakoli M., Aziminejad A., Patel R. and Moallem M., “Methods and mechanisms for contact feedback in a robot-assisted minimally invasive environment,” Surg. Endosc. 20 (10), 15701579 (2006).
35.Peirs J., Clijnen J., Reynaerts D., Brussel H., Herijgers P., Corteville B. and Boone S., “A micro optical force sensor for force feedback during minimally invasive robotic surgery,” Sensors Actuators A: Phys. 115 (2–3), 447455 (2004).
36.Seibold U., Kubler B. and Hirzinger G., “Prototype of Instrument for Minimally Invasive Surgery with 6-axis Force Sensing Capability,” In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Barcelona, Spain, 2005) pp. 496501.
37.Seibold U., Kubler B., Thielmann S. and Hirzinger G., “Endoscopic 3 Dof-Instrument with 7 Dof Force/Torque Feedback,” In: Workshop at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Kobe, Japan, 2009) pp. 14.
38.Hagn U., Konietschke R., Tobergte A., Nickl M., Jörg S., Kübler B., Passig G., Gröger M., Fröhlich F., Seibold U., et al.DLR mirosurge: A versatile system for research in endoscopic telesurgery,” Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 5 (2), 183193 (2010).
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Robotica
  • ISSN: 0263-5747
  • EISSN: 1469-8668
  • URL: /core/journals/robotica
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 32 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 255 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.