Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine,University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine of ABC, Santo André, SP, Brazil.
Assist Technol. 2020 May 3;32(3):144-152. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2018.1508094. Epub 2018 Oct 29.
When children with physical impairments cannot perform hand movements for haptic exploration, they may miss opportunities to learn the properties of objects. Assistive robots may enable them to make manipulation actions.
To examine the differences between using a robotic teleoperation system with haptic feedback and manual exploration when making perceptual comparisons about object properties. Accuracy and exploratory procedures (EP) using the system were compared to those in manual exploration.
Twenty adults without physical disabilities and ten typically developing children manipulated four pairs of objects and chose one based on size, roughness, hardness and shape. All participants completed the task with the robotic system (Tech) and manual exploration (No Tech), with the order counterbalanced.
Participants performed a previously unidentified EP, "tapping", in the Tech condition. Enclosure was not possible with the robot end effector, but tapping afforded the required perceptual information. Adults' perceptual comparisons were always accurate and they predominantly performed the optimum EP in both conditions. Even when children performed the optimum EP with the system, their answers were less accurate than with manual exploration. Most gave the correct answer, except for hardness, which was likely due to mechanical flexibility in the robotic system.
当身体有残障的儿童无法进行手部运动进行触觉探索时,他们可能会错过学习物体属性的机会。辅助机器人可以使他们进行操作动作。
当进行物体属性的知觉比较时,研究使用具有触觉反馈的机器人遥操作系统与手动探索之间的差异。比较了使用该系统进行的准确性和探索程序(EP)与手动探索中的那些。
20 名没有身体残疾的成年人和 10 名发育正常的儿童操纵四对物体,并根据大小、粗糙度、硬度和形状选择一个。所有参与者都使用机器人系统(Tech)和手动探索(No Tech)完成任务,顺序随机。
参与者在 Tech 条件下执行了以前未识别的 EP“轻敲”。机器人末端执行器不可能进行封闭,但轻敲提供了所需的感知信息。成年人的知觉比较总是准确的,他们在两种情况下都主要执行最佳 EP。即使儿童在系统中执行最佳 EP,他们的答案也不如手动探索准确。除了硬度,大多数人都给出了正确的答案,这可能是由于机器人系统的机械灵活性。