Smooth at one end and rough at the other: influence of object texture on grasping behaviour.

When picking up objects using a pinch grip, there are usually numerous places at which one could place the thumb and index finger. Yet, people seem to consistently place them at or close to the centre of mass (COM), presumably to minimize torque and therefore the required grip force. People also prefer to grasp objects by parallel surfaces and ones with higher friction coefficients (rough surfaces), to prevent the object from slipping when they lift it. Here, we examine the trade-off between friction and COM. Participants were asked to grasp and lift aluminium bars of which one end was polished and therefore smooth and the other was rough. Their finger positions were recorded to determine how they grasped the objects. The bars were oriented horizontally in the frontal plane, with the centre aligned with the participants' body midline. The bars varied in the horizontal offset between the COM and the edge of the rough region. The offset could be 0, 1 or 2 cm. We expected participants to grasp closer to the rough area than the centre of the bar. Completely rough bars and completely smooth bars served as control conditions. The slipperiness of the surface that was grasped affected the height of the grasping points, indicating that participants adjusted their grasping behaviour to the slipperiness of the surface. However, the tendency to grasp closer to the rough area was minimal. This shows that the judged COM largely determines how an object is grasped. Friction has very limited influence.

Visually Guided Haptic Search.

In this study, we investigate the influence of visual feedback on haptic exploration. A haptic search task was designed in which subjects had to haptically explore a virtual display using a force-feedback device and to determine whether a target was present among distractor items. Although the target was recognizable only haptically, visual feedback of finger position or possible target positions could be given. Our results show that subjects could use visual feedback on possible target positions even in the absence of feedback on finger position. When there was no feedback on possible target locations, subjects scanned the whole display systematically. When feedback on finger position was present, subjects could make well-directed movements back to areas of interest. This was not the case without feedback on finger position, indicating that showing finger position helps to form a spatial representation of the display. In addition, we show that response time models of visual serial search do not generally apply for haptic serial search. Consequently, in teleoperation systems, for instance, it is helpful to show the position of the probe even if visual information on the scene is poor.