Optimal visual-haptic integration with articulated tools
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Standard Standard
In: Experimental Brain Research, Vol. 235, 05.2017, p. 1361-1373.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Optimal visual-haptic integration with articulated tools
AU - Takahashi, Chie
AU - Watt, Simon
PY - 2017/5
Y1 - 2017/5
N2 - When we feel and see an object, the nervous system integrates visual and haptic information optimally, exploiting the redundancy in multiple signals to estimate properties more precisely than is possible from either signal alone. We examined whether optimal integration is similarly achieved when using articulated tools. Such tools (tongs, pliers, etc) are a defining characteristic of human hand function, but complicate the classical sensory ‘correspondence problem’ underlying multisensory integration. Optimal integration requires establishing the relationship between signals acquired by different sensors (hand and eye) and, therefore, in fundamentally unrelated units. The system must also determine when signals refer to the same property of the world—seeing and feeling the same thing—and only integrate those that do. This could be achieved by comparing the pattern of current visual and haptic input to known statistics of their normal relationship. Articulated tools disrupt this relationship, however, by altering the geometrical relationship between object properties and hand posture (the haptic signal). We examined whether different tool configurations are taken into account in visual–haptic integration. We indexed integration by measuring the precision of size estimates, and compared our results to optimal predictions from a maximum-likelihood integrator. Integration was near optimal, independent of tool configuration/hand posture, provided that visual and haptic signals referred to the same object in the world. Thus, sensory correspondence was determined correctly (trial-by-trial), taking tool configuration into account. This reveals highly flexible multisensory integration underlying tool use, consistent with the brain constructing internal models of tools’ properties.
AB - When we feel and see an object, the nervous system integrates visual and haptic information optimally, exploiting the redundancy in multiple signals to estimate properties more precisely than is possible from either signal alone. We examined whether optimal integration is similarly achieved when using articulated tools. Such tools (tongs, pliers, etc) are a defining characteristic of human hand function, but complicate the classical sensory ‘correspondence problem’ underlying multisensory integration. Optimal integration requires establishing the relationship between signals acquired by different sensors (hand and eye) and, therefore, in fundamentally unrelated units. The system must also determine when signals refer to the same property of the world—seeing and feeling the same thing—and only integrate those that do. This could be achieved by comparing the pattern of current visual and haptic input to known statistics of their normal relationship. Articulated tools disrupt this relationship, however, by altering the geometrical relationship between object properties and hand posture (the haptic signal). We examined whether different tool configurations are taken into account in visual–haptic integration. We indexed integration by measuring the precision of size estimates, and compared our results to optimal predictions from a maximum-likelihood integrator. Integration was near optimal, independent of tool configuration/hand posture, provided that visual and haptic signals referred to the same object in the world. Thus, sensory correspondence was determined correctly (trial-by-trial), taking tool configuration into account. This reveals highly flexible multisensory integration underlying tool use, consistent with the brain constructing internal models of tools’ properties.
UR - https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00221-017-4896-5/MediaObjects/221_2017_4896_MOESM1_ESM.docx
U2 - 10.1007/s00221-017-4896-5
DO - 10.1007/s00221-017-4896-5
M3 - Article
VL - 235
SP - 1361
EP - 1373
JO - Experimental Brain Research
JF - Experimental Brain Research
SN - 0014-4819
ER -