Dataset Information

The where of handovers by humans: Effect of partner characteristics, distance and visual feedback.

ABSTRACT: Object handovers between humans are common in our daily life but the mechanisms underlying handovers are still largely unclear. A good understanding of these mechanisms is important not only for a better understanding of human social behaviors, but also for the prospect of an automatized society in which machines will need to perform similar objects exchanges with humans. In this paper, we analyzed how humans determine the location of object transfer during handovers- to determine whether they can predict the preferred handover location of a partner, the variation of this prediction in 3D space, and to examine how much of a role vision plays in the whole process. For this we developed a paradigm that allows us to compare handovers by humans with and without on-line visual feedback. Our results show that humans have the surprising ability to modulate their handover location according to partners they have just met such that the resulting handover errors are in the order of few centimeters, even in the absence of vision. The handover errors are least along the axis joining the two partners, suggesting a limited role for visual feedback in this direction. Finally, we show that the handover locations are explained very well by a linear model considering the heights, genders and social dominances of the two partners, and the distance between them. We developed separate models for the behavior of 'givers' and 'receivers' and discuss how the behavior of the same individual changes depending on his role in the handover.

SUBMITTER: Kato S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6588208 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The where of handovers by humans: Effect of partner characteristics, distance and visual feedback.

Kato Saki S Yamanobe Natsuki N Venture Gentiane G Yoshida Eiichi E Ganesh Gowrishankar G

PloS one 20190621 6

Object handovers between humans are common in our daily life but the mechanisms underlying handovers are still largely unclear. A good understanding of these mechanisms is important not only for a better understanding of human social behaviors, but also for the prospect of an automatized society in which machines will need to perform similar objects exchanges with humans. In this paper, we analyzed how humans determine the location of object transfer during handovers- to determine whether they c ...[more]

PMID: 31226108

Similar Datasets

Project description:How humans visually select where to grasp objects is determined by the physical object properties (e.g., size, shape, weight), the degrees of freedom of the arm and hand, as well as the task to be performed. We recently demonstrated that human grasps are near-optimal with respect to a weighted combination of different cost functions that make grasps uncomfortable, unstable, or impossible, e.g., due to unnatural grasp apertures or large torques. Here, we ask whether humans can consciously access these rules. We test if humans can explicitly judge grasp quality derived from rules regarding grasp size, orientation, torque, and visibility. More specifically, we test if grasp quality can be inferred (i) by using visual cues and motor imagery alone, (ii) from watching grasps executed by others, and (iii) through performing grasps, i.e., receiving visual, proprioceptive and haptic feedback. Stimuli were novel objects made of 10 cubes of brass and wood (side length 2.5 cm) in various configurations. On each object, one near-optimal and one sub-optimal grasp were selected based on one cost function (e.g., torque), while the other constraints (grasp size, orientation, and visibility) were kept approximately constant or counterbalanced. Participants were visually cued to the location of the selected grasps on each object and verbally reported which of the two grasps was best. Across three experiments, participants were required to either (i) passively view the static objects and imagine executing the two competing grasps, (ii) passively view videos of other participants grasping the objects, or (iii) actively grasp the objects themselves. Our results show that, for a majority of tested objects, participants could already judge grasp optimality from simply viewing the objects and imagining to grasp them, but were significantly better in the video and grasping session. These findings suggest that humans can determine grasp quality even without performing the grasp-perhaps through motor imagery-and can further refine their understanding of how to correctly grasp an object through sensorimotor feedback but also by passively viewing others grasp objects.

Project description:The label-feedback hypothesis states that language can modulate visual processing. In particular, hearing or reading aloud target names (labels) speeds up performance in visual search tasks by facilitating target detection and such advantage is often measured against a condition where the target name is shown visually (i.e. via the same modality as the search task). The current study conceptually complements and expands previous investigations. The effect of a multimodal label presentation (i.e., an audio+visual, AV, priming label) in a visual search task is compared to that of a multimodal (i.e. white noise+visual, NV, label) and two unimodal (i.e. audio, A, label or visual, V, label) control conditions. The name of a category (i.e. a label at the superordinate level) is used as a cue, instead of the more commonly used target name (a basic level label), with targets belonging to one of three categories: garments, improper weapons, and proper weapons. These categories vary for their structure, improper weapons being an ad hoc category (i.e. context-dependent), unlike proper weapons and garments. The preregistered analysis shows an overall facilitation of visual search performance in the AV condition compared to the NV condition, confirming that the label-feedback effect may not be explained away by the effects of multimodal stimulation only and that it extends to superordinate labels. Moreover, exploratory analyses show that such facilitation is driven by the garments and proper weapons categories, rather than improper weapons. Thus, the superordinate label-feedback effect is modulated by the structural properties of a category. These findings are consistent with the idea that the AV condition prompts an "up-regulation" of the label, a requirement for enhancing the label's beneficial effects, but not when the label refers to an ad hoc category. They also highlight the peculiar status of the category of improper weapons and set it apart from that of proper weapons.

Project description:Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) can be designed with several feedback modalities. To promote appropriate brain plasticity in therapeutic applications, the feedback should guide the user to elicit the desired brain activity and preferably be similar to the imagined action. In this study, we employed magnetoencephalography (MEG) to measure neurophysiological changes in healthy subjects performing motor imagery (MI) -based BCI training with two different feedback modalities. The MI-BCI task used in this study lasted 40-60 min and involved imagery of right- or left-hand movements. 8 subjects performed the task with visual and 14 subjects with proprioceptive feedback. We analysed power changes across the session at multiple frequencies in the range of 4-40 Hz with a generalized linear model to find those frequencies at which the power increased significantly during training. In addition, the power increase was analysed for each gradiometer, separately for alpha (8-13 Hz), beta (14-30 Hz) and gamma (30-40 Hz) bands, to find channels showing significant linear power increase over the session. These analyses were applied during three different conditions: rest, preparation, and MI. Visual feedback enhanced the amplitude of mainly high beta and gamma bands (24-40 Hz) in all conditions in occipital and left temporal channels. During proprioceptive feedback, in contrast, power increased mainly in alpha and beta bands. The alpha-band enhancement was found in multiple parietal, occipital, and temporal channels in all conditions, whereas the beta-band increase occurred during rest and preparation mainly in the parieto-occipital region and during MI in the parietal channels above hand motor regions. Our results show that BCI training with proprioceptive feedback increases the power of sensorimotor rhythms in the motor cortex, whereas visual feedback causes mainly a gamma-band increase in the visual cortex. MI-BCIs should involve proprioceptive feedback to facilitate plasticity in the motor cortex.

Dataset Information

The where of handovers by humans: Effect of partner characteristics, distance and visual feedback.

Publications

The where of handovers by humans: Effect of partner characteristics, distance and visual feedback.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets