**7. References**


Haptic Concepts 23

Kitchin, R. M., Blades, M., & Golledge, R. G. (1997). Understanding spatial concepts at the

Klatzky, R. L., & Lederman, S. J. (2003). The haptic identification of everyday life objects. In

Lederman, S. J., Klatzky, R., Tong, C., & Hamilton, C. (2006). The perceived roughness of

Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and

Metcalfe, J., & Fisher, R. P. (1986). The relation between recognition memory and

Millar, S., & Al-Attar, Z. (2005). What aspects of vision facilitate haptic processing? *Brain and* 

Miller, E. A. (1972). Interaction of vision and touch in conflict and nonconflict form

Moll, M., & Erdmann, M. A., (2003). Reconstructing the shape and motion of unknown

Norman, J. F., Norman, H. F., Clayton, A. M., Lianekhammy, J., & Zielke, G. (2004). The

Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Tests of an exemplar model for relating perceptual classification and

Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., & Lopez, A. (1990). Category-based induction.

Pensky, A. E., Johnson, K. A., Haag, S., & Homa, D. (2008). Delayed memory for visualhaptic exploration of familiar objects. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15,* 574-580. Phillips, F., Egan, E. J. L., & Perry, B. N. (2009). Perceptual equivalence between vision and

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structures of

Rumelhart, D. E., & Abrahamson, A. A. (1973). A model for analogical reasoning. *Cognitive* 

Salada, M. A., Colgate, J. E., Vishton, P. M., & Frankel, E. (2004). Two experiments on the

Shin, H. J., Nosofsky, R. M. (1992). Similarity-scaling studies of dot-pattern classification and recognition. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121*, 278-304. Stevens, S., & Harris, J. R. (1962). The scaling of subjective roughness and smoothness.

perception of slip at the fingertip. In *12th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual* 

touch is complexity dependent. *Acta Psychologica, 132,* 259-266*.* 

objects with active tactile sensors. In J. D. Boissonnat, J. Burdick, K. Goldberg, & S. Hutchinson (Eds.), *Algorithmic and Computational Robotics: New Directions,* Springer

visual and haptic perception of natural object shape. *Perception & Psychophysics, 66*,

recognition memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and* 

"expert system". *Perception & Psychophysics, 37,* 299-302.

classification learning. *Memory and Cognition, 14*, 164-173.

conjunctions. *Nature*, 390, 279-281.

*Cognition, 59*, 258-268.

Verlag, 293-310.

*Performance, 17,* 3-27.

*Psychology, 5*, 1-28.

*Psychological Review, 97*, 185-200.

categories. *Cognitive Psychology,* 7, 573-605.

*Environments and Teleoperator Systems,* 146-153.

*Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64,* 489-494.

342-351.

device. *ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 3,* 15-30.

perception tasks. *Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96*, 114-123.

242.

geographic scale without the use of vision. *Progress in Human Geography, 21*, 225-

Y. Hatwell, A. Streri, & E. Gentaz (Eds.), *Touching for knowing: Cognitive psychology of haptic manual perception.* Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins Publications, 105-122. Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Metzger, V. A. (1985). Identifying objects by touch: An

resistive virtual textures: II. Effects of varying viscosity with a force-feedback


Ernst, M. O., & Bulthoff, H. H. (2004). Merging the senses into a robust percept. *Trends in* 

Freides, D. (1974). Human information processing and sensory modality: Cross-modal

Freides, D. (1975). Information complexity and cross-modal functions. *British Journal of* 

Garbin, C. P. (1990). Visual-touch perceptual equivalence for shape information in children

Garbin, C. P., & Bernstein, I. H. (1984). Visual and haptic perception of three-dimensional

Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2001). Prototypicality,

Gentaz, E., & Hatwell, Y. (2003). Haptic processing of spatial and material object properties.

Gliner, C. R., Pick, A. D., Pick H. L., & Hales, J. J. (1969). A developmental investigation of

Golledge, R. G. (1992). Do people understand spatial concepts? The case of first order

Hatwell, Y., Streri, A., & Gentaz, E. (2003), *Touching for knowing: Cognitive psychology of haptic* 

Hershberger, W. A., & Misceo, G. F. (1996). Touch dominates haptic estimates of discordant

Homa, D. (1984). On the nature of categories. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), *The psychology of learning* 

Homa, D., Goldhardt, B., Burruel-Homa, L., & Smith, C. (1993). Influence of manipulated

Homa, D., Kahol, K., Tripathi, P., Bratton, L., & Panchanathan, S. (2009). Haptic concepts in

Homa, D., Rhoads, D., Chambliss, D. (1979). Evolution of conceptual structure. *Journal of* 

Homa, D., Smith, C., Macak, C., Johovich, J., & Osorio, D. (2001). Recognition of facial

*manual perception.* Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins Publications.

visual-haptic size. *Perception & Psychophysics, 58*, 1124-1132.

the blind. *Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71,* 690-698.

*spatio-temporal reasoning in geographic space*. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1-21. Golledge, R. G., Ruggles, A. J., Pellegrino, J. W., & Gale, N. D. (1993). Integrating route

and nonliving concepts. *Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18,* 125–174. Gentaz, E., & Hatwell, Y. (1995). The haptic "oblique effect" in children's and adults'

distinctiveness and intercorrelation: Analyses of the semantic attributes of living

In Y. Hatwell, A. Streri, & E. Gentaz (Eds.), *Touching for knowing: Cognitive psychology of haptic manual perception.* Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins Publications,

visual and haptic preferences for shape and texture. *Monographs of the Society for* 

primitives. In A. U. Frank, I. Campari, & U. Formentini (Eds.), *Theories and models of* 

knowledge in an unfamiliar neighborhood: along and across route experiments.

*and motivation: Advances in research and theory*. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 49-

category knowledge on prototype classification and recognition. *Memory and* 

prototypes: The importance of categorical structure and degree of learning. *Journal* 

and adults. *Perception and Psychophysics, 48,* 271-279.

solid forms. *Perception & Psychophysics, 36,* 104-110.

perception of orientation. *Perception, 24*, 631-646.

*Research in Child Development, 34*, 1-40.

*Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13*, 293-307.

functions, information complexity, memory, and deficit. *Psychological Bulletin, 81*,

*Cognitive Sciences, 8*, 162-169.

*Psychology, 66*, 283-287.

284-310.

123-160.

94.

*Cognition, 21*, 529-538.

*Experimental Psychology, 5*, 11-23.

*of Memory and Language, 44*, 443-474.


**2** 

*1Japan 2Canada* 

*1Tezukayama University, 2Simon Fraser University,* 

**Computer Graphic and PHANToM** 

**Haptic Displays: Powerful Tools to** 

**Understand How Humans Perceive Heaviness** 

The development of human/computer interfaces related to human haptics is subject to greater degrees of difficulty and complexity than those related to human visual and/or auditory senses. Such interfaces require direct contact and/or interaction with humans as opposed to visual and/or auditory devices that do not require such direct contact, manipulation and other force-related interactions. Therefore, without a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved in haptics, such interfaces may be far from being

The focus of our research has been to understand the perceptual system of heaviness in humans. Heaviness perception, categorized as one aspect of haptic perception, is considered to be a vital ability in everyday life not only to recognize objects, but also to lift and manipulate them. Research in the field of experimental psychology, in particular psychophysics, has focused on identifying the properties and mechanisms of heaviness ever since Weber (1834, as translated by H. E. Ross & Murray, 1978) undertook his inquiries. Such properties and mechanisms have not yet been fully identified. Rather, the more experimental techniques and/or experimental environments have evolved, the more complex human perception of heaviness appears. This is because heaviness: (1) involves both perceptual systems and sensorimotor systems, such as the force programming system for lifting or holding objects, (2) is affected not only by object weight, but also by physical, functional and other properties of objects and (3) is affected by bottom-up processing by lower-order senses and by top-down processing by higher-order cognitive processes such as

The purpose of this chapter is to overview human perception of heaviness to decipher its complexity. In addition, we introduce the usefulness of virtual reality systems to isolate and understand constraints on heaviness perception. One such system adopted for our research is the Virtual Hand Laboratory, creating virtual or augmented environments, in which humans interact with computer displayed objects or real physical objects. We illuminate mechanisms of heaviness perception with fundamental findings that might not have been

**1. Introduction** 

user-centered or easy-to-use.

expectation and rationalization.

Satoru Kawai1, Paul H. Faust, Jr.1 and Christine L. MacKenzie2

