Augmenting Sensorimotor Control Using “Goal-Aware” Vibrotactile Stimulation during Reaching and Manipulation Behaviors

We describe two sets of experiments that examine the ability of vibrotactile encoding of simple position error and combined object states (calculated from an optimal controller) to enhance performance of reaching and manipulation tasks in healthy human adults. The goal of the first experiment (tracking) was to follow a moving target with a cursor on a computer screen. Visual and/or vibrotactile cues were provided in this experiment, and vibrotactile feedback was redundant with visual feedback in that it did not encode any information above and beyond what was already available via vision. After only 10 minutes of practice using vibrotactile feedback to guide performance, subjects tracked the moving target with response latency and movement accuracy values approaching those observed under visually guided reaching. Unlike previous reports on multisensory enhancement, combining vibrotactile and visual feedback of performance errors conferred neither positive nor negative effects on task performance. In the second experiment (balancing), vibrotactile feedback encoded a corrective motor command as a linear combination of object states (derived from a linear-quadratic regulator implementing a trade-off between kinematic and energetic performance) to teach subjects how to balance a simulated inverted pendulum. Here, the tactile feedback signal differed from visual feedback in that it provided information that was not readily available from visual feedback alone. Immediately after applying this novel “goal-aware” vibrotactile feedback, time to failure was improved by a factor of three. Additionally, the effect of vibrotactile training persisted after the feedback was removed. These results suggest that vibrotactile encoding of appropriate combinations of state information may be an effective form of augmented sensory feedback that can be applied, among other purposes, to compensate for lost or compromised proprioception as commonly observed, for example, in stroke survivors

Ecological psychology is radical enough: A reply to radical enactivists

Ecological psychology is one of the most influential theories of perception in the embodied, anti-representational, and situated cognitive sciences. However, radical enactivists claim that Gibsonians tend to describe ecological information and its ‘pick up’ in ways that make ecological psychology close to representational theories of perception and cognition. Motivated by worries about the tenability of classical views of informational content and its processing, these authors claim that ecological psychology needs to be “RECtified” so as to explicitly resist representational readings. In this paper, we argue against this call for RECtification. To do so, we offer a detailed analysis of the notion of perceptual information and other related notions such as specificity and meaning, as they are presented in the specialized ecological literature. We defend that these notions, if properly understood, remain free of any representational commitment. Ecological psychology, we conclude, does not need to be RECtified

Mechanisms of interpersonal sway synchrony and stability

Here we explain the neural and mechanical mechanisms responsible for synchronizing sway and improving postural control during physical contact with another standing person. Postural control processes were modelled using an inverted pendulum under continuous feedback control. Interpersonal interactions were simulated either by coupling the sensory feedback loops or by physically coupling the pendulums with a damped spring. These simulations precisely recreated the timing and magnitude of sway interactions observed empirically. Effects of firmly grasping another person's shoulder were explained entirely by the mechanical linkage. This contrasted with light touch and/or visual contact, which were explained by a sensory weighting phenomenon; each person's estimate of upright was based on a weighted combination of veridical sensory feedback combined with a small contribution from their partner. Under these circumstances, the model predicted reductions in sway even without the need to distinguish between self and partner motion. Our findings explain the seemingly paradoxical observation that touching a swaying person can improve postural control.This work was supported by two BBSRC grants (BB/100579X/1 and an Industry Interchange Award)