Advertisement

Task Dependence of Perceptual Deadzone

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 748)

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.

References

  1. Bhardwaj A, Chaudhuri S, Dabeer O (2014) Design and analysis of predictive sampling of haptic signals. ACM Trans Appl Percept (TAP) 11(4):16Google Scholar
  2. 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 1–6Google Scholar
  3. Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition. Mach Learn 128:1–58Google Scholar
  4. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Cross DV (1973) Sequential dependencies and regression in psychophysical judgments. Percept Psychophys 14(3):547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeCarlo LT (2003) An application of a dynamic model of judgment to magnitude production. Percept Psychophys 65(1):152–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeCarlo LT, Cross DV (1990) Sequential effects in magnitude scaling: models and theory. J Exp Psychol: Gen 119(4):375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrenstein WH, Ehrenstein A (1999) Psychophysical methods. In: Modern techniques in neuroscience research. Springer, pp 1211–1241Google Scholar
  9. Gescheider GA (2013) Psychophysics: the fundamentals. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
  10. Jesteadt W, Luce RD, Green DM (1977) Sequential effects in judgments of loudness. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 3(1):92Google Scholar
  11. Jones LA, Tan HZ (2013) Application of psychophysical techniques to haptic research. IEEE Trans Haptics 6(3):268–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (2009) Haptic perception: a tutorial. Atten Percept Psychophys 71(7):1439–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leek MR (2001) Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Percept Psychophys 63(8):1279–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lockhead GR, King MC (1983) A memory model of sequential effects in scaling tasks. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 9(3):461Google Scholar
  15. Podlesek A (2010) Sequential effects are not trivial context effects in psychophysical research. Rev Psychol 17(1):39–42Google Scholar
  16. Simpson WA (1988) The method of constant stimuli is efficient. Percept Psychophys 44(5):433–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Staddon J, King M, Lockhead GR (1980) On sequential effects in absolute judgment experiments. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 6(2):290Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations