Abstract
In this chapter, we study whether the perceptual deadzone depends on the task to be performed during the psychophysical experiments. In order to study this, we design a psychophysical experiment where we define two specific tasks: discriminative and comparative. In the discriminative task, the user must discriminate if the successive stimulus is different from the reference force, be it increasing or decreasing in magnitude. On the other hand, in case of the comparative task, the user has to discriminate the stimulus only along one direction, either increasing or decreasing in magnitude. Responses are recorded for both the tasks for several users. Support vector machine (SVM), a machine learning approach, is applied to the recorded responses to estimate the perceptual deadzone for each task. Our results demonstrate that comparative deadzone is significantly smaller than the discriminative deadzone in terms of their width and the just noticeable difference, suggesting that the task of discriminating two forces is more difficult for a user than to compare which force is greater (or smaller). Hence taking inference of this study, we demonstrate that the perceptual deadzone does depend on the task being performed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bhardwaj A, Chaudhuri S, Dabeer O (2014) Design and analysis of predictive sampling of haptic signals. ACM Trans Appl Percept (TAP) 11(4):16
Bhardwaj A, Dabeer O, Chaudhuri S (2013) Can we improve over Weber sampling of haptic signals? In: Information Theory and Applications Workshop. San Diego CA, pp 1–6
Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition. Mach Learn 128:1–58
Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297
Cross DV (1973) Sequential dependencies and regression in psychophysical judgments. Percept Psychophys 14(3):547–552
DeCarlo LT (2003) An application of a dynamic model of judgment to magnitude production. Percept Psychophys 65(1):152–162
DeCarlo LT, Cross DV (1990) Sequential effects in magnitude scaling: models and theory. J Exp Psychol: Gen 119(4):375
Ehrenstein WH, Ehrenstein A (1999) Psychophysical methods. In: Modern techniques in neuroscience research. Springer, pp 1211–1241
Gescheider GA (2013) Psychophysics: the fundamentals. Psychology Press, Hove
Jesteadt W, Luce RD, Green DM (1977) Sequential effects in judgments of loudness. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 3(1):92
Jones LA, Tan HZ (2013) Application of psychophysical techniques to haptic research. IEEE Trans Haptics 6(3):268–284
Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (2009) Haptic perception: a tutorial. Atten Percept Psychophys 71(7):1439–1459
Leek MR (2001) Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Percept Psychophys 63(8):1279–1292
Lockhead GR, King MC (1983) A memory model of sequential effects in scaling tasks. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 9(3):461
Podlesek A (2010) Sequential effects are not trivial context effects in psychophysical research. Rev Psychol 17(1):39–42
Simpson WA (1988) The method of constant stimuli is efficient. Percept Psychophys 44(5):433–436
Staddon J, King M, Lockhead GR (1980) On sequential effects in absolute judgment experiments. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 6(2):290
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chaudhuri, S., Bhardwaj, A. (2018). Task Dependence of Perceptual Deadzone. In: Kinesthetic Perception. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 748. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6692-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6692-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6691-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6692-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)