Haptic discrimination of two-dimensional angles: influence of exploratory strategy

Abstract

The aim of this study was to define the relative contribution of self-generated cutaneous and proprioceptive feedback to haptic shape discrimination by systematically constraining the exploratory strategy. Subjects (n = 23) explored pairs of two-dimensional (2-D) angles (standard angle, 90 degrees; comparison angles, 91 degrees -103 degrees) placed at arm's length from the subject, and identified the larger angle of each pair. The exploratory strategies included a reference condition, dynamic scan of the index finger over the entire object [combined cutaneous and proprioceptive (shoulder) feedback], and modified conditions, static touch of the intersection of the two bars that formed the angle using the index finger (cutaneous feedback) and dynamic scans of the object using a hand-held tool (proprioceptive feedback, shoulder). Discrimination thresholds (75% correct) were very similar for dynamic and static touch with the index finger. Thresholds varied as a function of the static contact duration (<1 s, 7.2 degrees +/- 0.6 degrees; approximately 3 s, 4.2 degrees +/- 0.5 degrees), but were not different from the reference condition (6.0 degrees +/- 0.9 degrees). The higher threshold with short static touch likely reflects movement-related gating of self-generated tactile inputs. Together, the results suggested that cutaneous feedback alone may be sufficient to explain 2-D angle discrimination, because the added proprioceptive feedback did not improve performance. Also, threshold did not vary with the number of dynamic scans (one or two), suggesting that the critical information was gathered on the first pass over the angle. In contrast, when the angles were explored with the tool, the threshold increased relative to the corresponding reference condition from the same session (tool, 9.6 degrees +/- 0.9 degrees; dynamic scan with the finger, 6.2 degrees +/- 1.0 degrees). Thus, performance was poorer with proprioceptive feedback alone, suggesting that cutaneous feedback was relatively more important for 2-D haptic angle discrimination in the present experiment.