skip to main content

Title: Sensing small interaction forces through proprioception
Abstract Understanding the human motor control strategy during physical interaction tasks is crucial for developing future robots for physical human–robot interaction (pHRI). In physical human–human interaction (pHHI), small interaction forces are known to convey their intent between the partners for effective motor communication. The aim of this work is to investigate what affects the human’s sensitivity to the externally applied interaction forces. The hypothesis is that one way the small interaction forces are sensed is through the movement of the arm and the resulting proprioceptive signals. A pHRI setup was used to provide small interaction forces to the hand of seated participants in one of four directions, while the participants were asked to identify the direction of the push while blindfolded. The result shows that participants’ ability to correctly report the direction of the interaction force was lower with low interaction force as well as with high muscle contraction. The sensitivity to the interaction force direction increased with the radial displacement of the participant’s hand from the initial position: the further they moved the more correct their responses were. It was also observed that the estimated stiffness of the arm varies with the level of muscle contraction and robot interaction more » force. « less
Authors:
; ;
Award ID(s):
1843892
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10322030
Journal Name:
Scientific Reports
Volume:
11
Issue:
1
ISSN:
2045-2322
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Effective physical human-robot interaction (pHRI) depends on how humans can communicate their intentions for movement with others. While it is speculated that small interaction forces contain significant information to convey the specific movement intention of physical humanhuman interaction (pHHI), the underlying mechanism for humans to infer intention from such small forces is largely unknown. The hypothesis in this work is that the sensitivity to a small interaction force applied at the hand is affected by the movement of the arm that is affected by the arm stiffness. For this, a haptic robot was used to provide the endpoint interaction forces to the arm of seated human participants. They were asked to determine one of the four directions of the applied robot interaction force without visual feedback. Variations of levels of interaction force as well as arm muscle contraction were applied. The results imply that human’s ability to identify and respond to the correct direction of small interaction forces was lower when the alignment of human arm movement with respect to the force direction was higher. In addition, the sensitivity to the direction of the small interaction force was high when the arm stiffness was low. It is also speculated thatmore »humans lower their arm stiffness to be more sensitive to smaller interaction forces. These results will help develop human-like pHRI systems for various applications.« less
  2. Physical interaction with tools is ubiquitous in functional activities of daily living. While tool use is considered a hallmark of human behavior, how humans control such physical interactions is still poorly understood. When humans perform a motor task, it is commonly suggested that the central nervous system coordinates the musculo-skeletal system to minimize muscle effort. In this paper, we tested if this notion holds true for motor tasks that involve physical interaction. Specifically, we investigated whether humans minimize muscle forces to control physical interaction with a circular kinematic constraint. Using a simplified arm model, we derived three predictions for how humans should behave if they were minimizing muscular effort to perform the task. First, we predicted that subjects would exert workless, radial forces on the constraint. Second, we predicted that the muscles would be deactivated when they could not contribute to work. Third, we predicted that when moving very slowly along the constraint, the pattern of muscle activity would not differ between clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) motions. To test these predictions, we instructed human subjects to move a robot handle around a virtual, circular constraint at a constant tangential velocity. To reduce the effect of forces that might arisemore »from incomplete compensation of neuro-musculo-skeletal dynamics, the target tangential speed was set to an extremely slow pace (~1 revolution every 13.3 seconds). Ultimately, the results of human experiment did not support the predictions derived from our model of minimizing muscular effort. While subjects did exert workless forces, they did not deactivate muscles as predicted. Furthermore, muscle activation patterns differed between CW and CCW motions about the constraint. These findings demonstrate that minimizing muscle effort is not a significant factor in human performance of this constrained-motion task. Instead, the central nervous system likely prioritizes reducing other costs, such as computational effort, over muscle effort to control physical interactions.« less
  3. Physical interaction with tools is ubiquitous in functional activities of daily living. While tool use is considered a hallmark of human behavior, how humans control such physical interactions is still poorly understood. When humans perform a motor task, it is commonly suggested that the central nervous system coordinates the musculo-skeletal system to minimize muscle effort. In this paper, we tested if this notion holds true for motor tasks that involve physical interaction. Specifically, we investigated whether humans minimize muscle forces to control physical interaction with a circular kinematic constraint. Using a simplified arm model, we derived three predictions for how humans should behave if they were minimizing muscular effort to perform the task. First, we predicted that subjects would exert workless, radial forces on the constraint. Second, we predicted that the muscles would be deactivated when they could not contribute to work. Third, we predicted that when moving very slowly along the constraint, the pattern of muscle activity would not differ between clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) motions. To test these predictions, we instructed human subjects to move a robot handle around a virtual, circular constraint at a constant tangential velocity. To reduce the effect of forces that might arisemore »from incomplete compensation of neuro-musculo-skeletal dynamics, the target tangential speed was set to an extremely slow pace (~1 revolution every 13.3 seconds). Ultimately, the results of human experiment did not support the predictions derived from our model of minimizing muscular effort. While subjects did exert workless forces, they did not deactivate muscles as predicted. Furthermore, muscle activation patterns differed between CW and CCW motions about the constraint. These findings demonstrate that minimizing muscle effort is not a significant factor in human performance of this constrained-motion task. Instead, the central nervous system likely prioritizes reducing other costs, such as computational effort, over muscle effort to control physical interactions.« less
  4. Physical interaction with tools is ubiquitous in functional activities of daily living. While tool use is considered a hallmark of human behavior, how humans control such physical interactions is still poorly understood. When humans perform a motor task, it is commonly suggested that the central nervous system coordinates the musculo-skeletal system to minimize muscle effort. In this paper, we tested if this notion holds true for motor tasks that involve physical interaction. Specifically, we investigated whether humans minimize muscle forces to control physical interaction with a circular kinematic constraint. Using a simplified arm model, we derived three predictions for how humans should behave if they were minimizing muscular effort to perform the task. First, we predicted that subjects would exert workless, radial forces on the constraint. Second, we predicted that the muscles would be deactivated when they could not contribute to work. Third, we predicted that when moving very slowly along the constraint, the pattern of muscle activity would not differ between clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) motions. To test these predictions, we instructed human subjects to move a robot handle around a virtual, circular constraint at a constant tangential velocity. To reduce the effect of forces that might arisemore »from incomplete compensation of neuro-musculo-skeletal dynamics, the target tangential speed was set to an extremely slow pace (~1 revolution every 13.3 seconds). Ultimately, the results of human experiment did not support the predictions derived from our model of minimizing muscular effort. While subjects did exert workless forces, they did not deactivate muscles as predicted. Furthermore, muscle activation patterns differed between CW and CCW motions about the constraint. These findings demonstrate that minimizing muscle effort is not a significant factor in human performance of this constrained-motion task. Instead, the central nervous system likely prioritizes reducing other costs, such as computational effort, over muscle effort to control physical interactions.« less
  5. Physical interaction with tools is ubiquitous in functional activities of daily living. While tool use is considered a hallmark of human behavior, how humans control such physical interactions is still poorly understood. When humans perform a motor task, it is commonly suggested that the central nervous system coordinates the musculo-skeletal system to minimize muscle effort. In this paper, we tested if this notion holds true for motor tasks that involve physical interaction. Specifically, we investigated whether humans minimize muscle forces to control physical interaction with a circular kinematic constraint. Using a simplified arm model, we derived three predictions for how humans should behave if they were minimizing muscular effort to perform the task. First, we predicted that subjects would exert workless, radial forces on the constraint. Second, we predicted that the muscles would be deactivated when they could not contribute to work. Third, we predicted that when moving very slowly along the constraint, the pattern of muscle activity would not differ between clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) motions. To test these predictions, we instructed human subjects to move a robot handle around a virtual, circular constraint at a constant tangential velocity. To reduce the effect of forces that might arisemore »from incomplete compensation of neuro-musculo-skeletal dynamics, the target tangential speed was set to an extremely slow pace (~1 revolution every 13.3 seconds). Ultimately, the results of human experiment did not support the predictions derived from our model of minimizing muscular effort. While subjects did exert workless forces, they did not deactivate muscles as predicted. Furthermore, muscle activation patterns differed between CW and CCW motions about the constraint. These findings demonstrate that minimizing muscle effort is not a significant factor in human performance of this constrained-motion task. Instead, the central nervous system likely prioritizes reducing other costs, such as computational effort, over muscle effort to control physical interactions.« less