4.7 Article

Midfrontal theta power encodes the value of haptic delay

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12911-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. New York University Abu Dhabi PhD Fellowship Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of haptic technologies is becoming the norm in rehabilitation, medical training, and entertainment, but there is still a lack of research on how humans perceive delayed haptic information. In this study, we use EEG to investigate the neural correlates of haptic delay perception. The results suggest that midfrontal theta oscillation and parietal alpha oscillation play important roles in quantifying the amount of haptic delay and encoding its presence.
The use of haptic technologies in modern life scenarios is becoming the new normal particularly in rehabilitation, medical training, and entertainment applications. An evident challenge in haptic telepresence systems is the delay in haptic information. How humans perceive delayed visual and audio information has been extensively studied, however, the same for haptically delayed environments remains largely unknown. Here, we develop a visuo-haptic experimental setting that simulates pick and place task and involves continuous haptic feedback stimulation with four possible haptic delay levels. The setting is built using a haptic device and a computer screen. We use electroencephalography (EEG) to study the neural correlates that could be used to identify the amount of the experienced haptic delay. EEG data were collected from 34 participants. Results revealed that midfrontal theta oscillation plays a pivotal role in quantifying the amount of haptic delay while parietal alpha showed a significant modulation that encodes the presence of haptic delay. Based on the available literature, these results suggest that the amount of haptic delay is proportional to the neural activation that is associated with conflict detection and resolution as well as for multi-sensory divided attention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据