1
Bi-manual Sensory Discrimination: A Kinesthetic
Study
Suhas Kakade, Subhasis Chaudhuri, Fellow, IEEE, and Abhishek Gupta
Abstract—The ability of humans to perceive and differentiate
kinesthetic sensory information significantly influences our daily
activities and motor control. This study examines the impact
of asynchronous bi-manual discrimination tasks in comparison
to uni-manual discrimination tasks on kinesthetic perception.
Our study aims to reveal the relationship between kinesthetic
perception of haptic signals by examining perceptual thresholds
in three different scenarios using (i) the dominant hand, (ii)
the non-dominant hand, and (iii) both hands simultaneously to
differentiate between two successive signals. Subjects exposed to
force signals in these three situations conveyed their perceptions
of alterations in signal magnitude after each trial. Subsequently,
we applied psychometric functions to the collected responses to
determine perceptual thresholds. Our results indicate a substan-
tial difference in threshold values between bi-manual and uni-
manual scenarios, with the bi-manual scenario exhibiting higher
thresholds, indicating inferior perceptual ability when both hands
are simultaneously utilized in two separate discrimination tasks.
Furthermore, our investigation reveals distinct perception thresh-
olds between the dominant and non-dominant hands, owing to
differences in the perceptual capability of the two hands. These
findings provide substantial insight into how the nature of tasks
may alter kinesthetic perception, offering implications for the
development of haptic interfaces in practical applications.
Index Terms—Kinesthetic perception, uni-manual haptic per-
ception, bi-manual haptic perception, perceptual threshold, Hu-
man performance.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T OUCH is crucial to human perception as it allows us to
interact with the physical world. The ability to interpret
and discriminate force sensations using muscles, tendons, and
joints is known as kinesthetic haptic perception [1], [2]. This
sensory experience allows us to recognize, differentiate, and
identify objects through touch.
Humans have perceptual constraints that limit their capa-
bility to recognize or discriminate such inputs. The absolute
threshold (AL) is the smallest stimulus required for a person
to recognize the presence of a sensory input [3]. Usually, AL
is considered as a stimulus strength that can be detected in
50% of instances. Weber’s law of perception [4] is used to
define the threshold at which perception occurs. It stipulates
that a change in a signal will only be recognized if it exceeds
a specific threshold compared to the prior stimulus. At a
given stimulus intensity I, the relation between just noticeable
difference (JND) δI and Weber threshold d can be defined as
δI = dI (1)
The present research aims to determine the haptic perception
threshold ρ for an asynchronous task in both the bi-manual
and uni-manual modes, examining both the dominant and
non-dominant hands. For a given reference signal, we define
ρ as the smallest detectable difference between sequentially
presented force signals. This threshold is computed as the
difference between 50% and 84% detection of stimulus [3],
[5]. In this case, we have used difference between the mag-
nitude of force signal as a stimulus. In contrast to uni-
manual haptic perception, which uses only one hand, in this
work, bi-manual haptic perception, which specifically involves
simultaneously perceiving the distinct haptic force signals with
both hands is specifically investigated. Thus, this study aims
to determine whether the kinesthetic perception of individuals
changes when using both hands, as opposed to one.
The null hypothesis Ho and alternative hypothesis Ha
evaluated in this work are stated below.
Ho : ρ for both hands during the bi-manual and uni-manual
perception of force signals are equal.
Ha : ρ for both hands during the bi-manual and uni-manual
perception of force signals are unequal.
To accomplish this, we gathered collectively over 72 h
of data from 18 volunteers who perceived force signals
in three different phases with their dominant hand, non-
dominant hand, and both hands simultaneously. They were
asked to differentiate among the magnitude of sequentially
presented force signals in each setting and their responses
were recorded. Additionally, we recorded the response time
of subjects perceiving changes in force. To determine ρ values
for force signals in bi-manual and uni-manual paradigms, we
subsequently applied psychometric functions [6]–[8] on the
collected responses, and the obtained ρ values are compared.
The key contributions of this paper are:
• We developed an experimental protocol to study the
influence of asynchronous bi-manual discrimination tasks
on kinesthetic perception.
• We compared perceptual thresholds for asynchronous dis-
crimination tasks in bi-manual and uni-manual contexts.
• The results demonstrated significantly higher ρvalues in
the bi-manual setting, suggesting a reduced haptic percep-
tion when using both hands. This discovery suggests that
processing information from two sources simultaneously
might diminish sensitivity to haptic input.
• The study also discovered that the perception thresholds
for the dominant and non-dominant hands differed, in-
dicating that the two hands may have different levels of
perceptual awareness.
II. P RIOR W ORK
Estimating JND and Weber threshold has been the subject
of extensive investigation for many years. [9], [10] discuss the

estimation of JND on offline data in a uni-manual setting and
their application in adaptive sampling. They examined the JND
for force signals in uni-manual conditions and found that it
depends on the magnitude of the force exerted. They noted that
for low force levels, JND was smaller, and as the force level
increased, the JND grew larger. In [11]–[13], Weber’s law is
applied to the perception-based data reduction method to lower
the packet rate in the teleoperation system. It is accomplished
by discarding haptic samples that are undetectable by humans
and only transmitting sampled data whose value exceeds
a specified threshold. [10], [14] examined the variation in
Weber threshold caused by the shift in force direction for the
multidimensional signals.
In [15], tests of manual dexterity and kinesthetic discrimina-
tion were conducted to investigate a correlation between these
skills. The results revealed a significant positive correlation
(p < 0.05) between them. Thus, individuals with better manual
dexterity tend to exhibit strong kinesthetic discrimination
ability, and vice versa. Thus, strengthening one of these skills
can help improve the other. In many areas, like rehabilitation,
sports training, etc., where both manual dexterity and kines-
thetic discrimination play critical roles, comprehending and
utilizing this relationship could be beneficial.
[16] investigated whether Weber’s law equally applies to
simultaneous and non-simultaneous (successive) viewing con-
ditions. Weber carried out an experiment in [17] on successive
viewing and found that the range of Weber fraction is less than
4% for discriminating the length of lines. He also observed
that Weber’s law applies to successive viewing conditions and
not to simultaneous viewing conditions. Hence, both condition
gives different threshold values.
To the best of our knowledge, very little research exists
on bi-manual and uni-manual exploration or discrimination
tasks of haptic perception. [18] investigated unilateral and
bilateral haptic discrimination of curved hand-sized surfaces.
The results showed that discrimination of curvature did not
follow Weber’s law, and unilateral discrimination was con-
sistently better than bilateral, possibly due to the placement
order, which had a significant effect on the bilateral condition.
[19] explored how hands interact when manipulating a shared
object with specialized exoskeletons. Findings indicated that
force imbalances were linked to the movement direction and
handedness, with right-handers showing directional asymme-
tries related to movement direction, while left-handers dis-
played more precise control of the force applied between their
hands.
A study conducted in [20] estimated the JND for recog-
nizing the force magnitude difference between the human
hand’s left and right index fingers using a contra-lateral
force-matching paradigm. They obtained a JND of 10% and
observed that subjects tended to underestimate the force at
high levels and overestimate it at low levels. Researchers
examined the perception of weight when lifting virtual boxes
of varying weights using either one hand or both hands in
[21]. Results indicated that the weight feels lighter when both
hands are engaged in lifting.
In [22], subjects explored object shapes using either one
hand to compare two objects or both hands, each explor-
2
ing a separate object. They observed that both bi-manual
and uni-manual explorations are equally effective, indicating
that inter-hemispheric communication does not reduce the
ability for shape discrimination tasks. While successive bi-
manual exploration led to good shape discrimination, subjects
struggled when comparing shapes simultaneously. It suggests
that either interference between brain hemispheres or the
challenge of attending to multiple objects at once reduces
shape discrimination.
[23] performed experimentation similar to the work carried
out in this paper. They obtained JND for synchronous force
signals in the x-direction while the hands are moving. A
staircase approach was utilized to generate the random forces.
They investigated how the dominant and non-dominant hands
perceive these force signals when they both are in simultane-
ous motion. A 3-AFC paradigm was used to determine JND.
The results indicated that when both hands were perceiving
the haptic signals, their ability to detect changes in force
diminished. The statistical analysis demonstrated a strong level
of confidence in the significance of these findings for the non-
dominant hand, whereas the confidence level for the dominant
hand was lower. Thus, they were unable to conclude for the
dominant hand.
In real-life scenarios, events often occur asynchronously.
Thus, in this work, we focused on an asynchronous discrim-
ination task when the hands are at a particular position. The
method of constant stimuli is used for determining ρ. As each
sample of the random force is an instance of a random variable
uniformly distributed between 0.5 N to 2.5 N compared to a
reference force of 1.5 N, it allows for better estimation of ρ as
compared to a fixed set of input stimuli. Also, as the trials are
independent of each other, any learning or adaptation effects
that can arise in an adaptive approach like the staircase method
can be minimized. Here, we observed with a high degree of
confidence that perception reduces during a bi-manual setting
for both the dominant and non-dominant hand. However, our
approach may consume a considerable amount of time as it
requires a large number of trials at multiple intensity levels.
The paper is organized as follows. Section III delves into the
experimental setup required to estimate perception thresholds.
Section IV comprehensively analyzes and deliberates on the
acquired findings. Section V contains the conclusions derived
from the study.
III. E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP
In order to determine the perception threshold of kinesthetic
force stimuli, an experimental setup is described in this sec-
tion. Fig. 1 illustrates the setup used for our haptic experiment.
Two Phantom Omni haptic devices capable of generating
force sensations are connected to a separate personal computer.
The human subject holds the stylus of each of these devices in
their hand. The study is divided into three distinct phases. In
each of these phases, different (left or right) or both hands
are used for perceiving force signals as described below.
However, specific details of the presentation of force signals
and recording of responses are discussed in more detail in the
subsection III-B.

Fig. 1. Experimental setup for an asynchronous bi-manual task.
• Phase I - Dominant hand:
In the first phase, subjects utilize their dominant hand,
the one typically more skilled in tasks to perceive force
signals. In this phase, they grasp the stylus of one of
the haptic devices with their dominant hand. In each
trial, they are presented with two separate force signals
in quick succession on the stylus. They may indicate
whether they can detect the difference in magnitude
between these two signals.
• Phase II - Non-dominant hand:
In the second phase, subjects switch to their non-
dominant hand to sense the haptic signals, grasping the
stylus of any haptic device with their non-dominant hand.
Once again, during each trial, they receive two distinct
force signals in rapid succession on the stylus and may
determine whether they can distinguish a difference in
magnitude between the two signals.
• Phase III - Engaging both hands:
This phase is equivalent to conducting both phases I and
II of the experiment together. In this phase, subjects feel
separate forces on both hands at the same time. This
phase involves holding the stylus of both haptic devices
simultaneously, one in each hand. During each trial, each
personal computer generates two different haptic signals.
These signals are applied to the respectively connected
haptic devices. The subjects will perceive these signals
in such a way that their dominant hand receives two
consecutive signals from one haptic device while their
non-dominant hand simultaneously but asynchronously
receives the other two signals from the second haptic
device. Subjects will independently assess whether they
detect any changes in the signals experienced by each of
their hands.
Their response can fall into any of these four cases:
1) Detected a change in the magnitude of respectively
perceived force signals by both hands.
2) Detected a change in the magnitude of force signals
for the dominant hand but not for the non-dominant
hand.
3) Detected a change in the magnitude of force signals
for the non-dominant hand but not for the dominant
hand.
4) Did not detect a change in the magnitude of respec-
tively perceived force signals by both hands.
The experiment was carried out in a laboratory with a
3
seating capacity of 6 people. Normal laboratory activities were
permitted during the experiment, including group discussion
and movement near the door. A distance of about 40 cm
is maintained between the subject’s shoulders and the haptic
devices. During the experiment, subjects’ arms and wrists were
fixed at a position while perceiving the force signals. The
experiments were implemented on Intel I3 processor-based
personal computers operating at a frequency of 3.4 GHz using
C++ programming language in the Visual Studio 2019.
A. Haptic Device
In order to generate the kinesthetic force signals, we utilized
the Phantom Omni [24] haptic device. The device has six
degrees of freedom for versatile control. HAPI [25], an open-
source software platform was used alongside this device to
provide a robust foundation for signal generation and manipu-
lation. The Phantom Omni could collectively exert a maximum
force of 3.3 N along the x, y, and z directions at an update rate
of 1 kHz. It has a detachable stylus, which can be held like a
pen, as shown in Fig. 1. The stylus features two programmable
buttons, one of which is bright grey and the other is dark grey.
These buttons can be used to initiate particular tasks or record
responses during interactions.
B. Stimuli Characteristics
Our experimental stimuli revolved around piece-wise con-
stant force signals. During each trial of the experiment,
subjects will encounter two distinct force signals one after
another in quick succession, which can be likened to the
sensation of force acting upon their hands. Both signals are
unidirectional and precisely aligned with the z-direction of
the haptic device. The forces are applied either towards or
away from the subject, creating a sensation akin to forces
being exerted onto or away from the subject’s hand. Initially, a
reference force F1 is established as a baseline for comparison.
It is always constant with a magnitude of 1.5 N. The ensuing
force signal F2 may then deviate from this reference signal,
thereby offering subjects distinct experiences that could be
perceptually discerned. F2 is always random in magnitude and
uniformly distributed between 0.5 to 2.5 N.
The force F1 is always of a 5 s duration, as shown in Fig. 2.
However, the duration of F2 is dependent on the response of
the subject. It varies from a minimal value to a maximum
duration of 5 s. If the subject reports a change in the signal
level, the F1 for the next trial will start immediately, ending
F2 for the current trial at that instance. The maximum duration
of 5 s is decided from past experience considering the time
required to acquire the signal as stated in [10], [26]. The per-
ception of force could change at the points where magnitude
varies from one level to another between force signals. These
meticulously designed force signals played a crucial role in
exploring kinesthetic force perception thresholds.
C. Methodology
Subjects had a thorough introduction to the haptic device
before initiating the experiment. To help them become com-
fortable using the haptic device, considerable training was pro-
vided. Subsequently, subjects received clear explanations about

(a)
Fig. 2. Force stimuli used in the experiment. (a) Generated force signals in the absence of the subject’s feedback. (b) Alteration in the signal following the
subject’s feedback.
the experiment’s purpose and objectives, and any questions
they had were thoroughly addressed. In order to ensure the
focused engagement of subjects, they were instructed to wear
headphones and close their eyes during experimentation. These
precautions were taken to reduce any outside distractions that
might have affected their perception during the experiment.
During each phase of the experimentation, 500 trials were
conducted. In each trial of phase I, subjects hold the stylus
using their dominant hand. The causal force signals, F1 and
F2 , were presented consecutively. Subjects were instructed to
provide feedback whenever they noticed a change in force
magnitude. Subjects typically experience variations in the
magnitude of the force when the signal state changes. If the
subject sensed the variation, the next trial was started imme-
diately after the subject’s feedback was registered. However,
if the subject did not perceive any change in the magnitude of
force signals, F2 lasts for the complete 5 s duration before the
start of the next trial. The same procedure was then repeated
for phases II and III.
In phase III of the experiment, the force signals generated
by two different computers were sent to the connected haptic
device. Both computers ran at the same frequency and were
programmed to generate similar signals. However, as the
signals were generated using different computers, they were
independent of each other. To begin the experiment simultane-
ously, the subjects were instructed to click any of the buttons
on each stylus. As shown in Fig. 3, the signals perceived by
the dominant and non-dominant hands started with F1 at the
same time instance t1 , and transitioned to respective F2 at t2 .
Subjects independently responded to signal variation at t3 for
Fig. 3. Asynchronous force signals perceived by the dominant hand (DHS)
(in red) and the non-dominant hand (NHS) (in green) in a bi-manual scenario.
the dominant hand and at t4 for the non-dominant hand, start-
ing the next trial with F1 for the respective hands immediately.
4
(b)
The state of these signals again changes to the corresponding
F2 at t5 and t6 , respectively. Depending upon signal variation,
the dominant hand detected signal change at t7 ; however, the
non-dominant hand could not detect such change in the signal
experienced by it. Consequently, variations in response times
could cause the signals experienced by both hands to change
asynchronously.
The sequence of operations followed during experimenta-
tion is mentioned in the algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Experimental Procedure
Step 1: Hold a stylus in the dominant hand for an uni-manual
experience.
Step 2: Initiate the experiment at a convenience.
Step 3: Record the position of the stylus before presenting the
force signal.
Step 4: Generate forces and apply them to the stylus one after
another.
Step 5: Ask the subject, “Whenever you perceive any change
in the force, press any button”.
Step 6: If subject responds, capture response time of the
subject.
Step 7: Repeat steps 4 to 6 for 500 samples.
Step 8: Repeat steps 2 to 7 for the other hand and finally for
both hands for a bi-manual experience.
D. Data Collection
Proper ethical permission was obtained from the Institute
authorities to involve human volunteers in the experiment. For
the input stimuli discussed in the previous subsection III-B,
data has been collected from 18 subjects. The data consists of
responses of subjects with response time. All the individuals
participated in the experiment voluntarily; they were not paid
any compensation. They gave written consent before starting
the experiment. These individuals were within the age group
of 24-37, comprising 14 males and 04 females. Among the 18
subjects, 14 were right-handed, whereas 04 were left-handed.
Among these individuals, 15 subjects were unfamiliar with the
haptic device, whereas 03 subjects were regular users of the
haptic device. None of the subjects suffered from any neuro-
physiological disorder.
If the experiment is carried out for a longer duration in
a single sitting, there may be a possibility of perceptual
 5

fatigue, which will impact the perception threshold. Hence,

the subjects were not allowed to sit for a duration longer than
30 min. Therefore, multiple sessions with each subject were
necessary to collect comprehensive data. The overall duration
required to perform the experiment was approximately 4 h per
subject.

IV. R ESULTS
To understand the distribution of the force signal F2 , the
complete spectrum of values representing F2 for all the Fig. 5. Response of a right-handed subject.
subjects is gathered. A cumulative frequency plot of these
values, as illustrated in Fig. 4 displays a ramp-like shape, TABLE I
ρ AND Tr FOR A RIGHT- HANDED SUBJECT. H ERE , DH STANDS FOR
confirming that F2 is uniformly distributed. DOMINANT HAND AND NH STANDS FOR NON - DOMINANT HAND .

Experimentation Phase AL ρ Tr (ms)

I - DH 0.2157 0.0604 378.6604
II - NH 0.2457 0.0774 408.8196
III - DH 0.2483 0.0958 394.3995
III - NH 0.2836 0.1124 416.3575

Fig. 4. Cumulative frequency of F2 experienced by all the subjects.

For each of the subjects, we apply the psychometric func-

tion [8] to the responses gathered during each phase of the
experimentation to obtain AL and ρ. The response of one
of the right-handed subjects is depicted in Fig. 5. The x-axis
represents an absolute difference between the forces F1 and Fig. 6. Response of a left-handed subject.
F2 , whereas the y-axis represents the probability of successful
perception. The illustration demonstrates that this right-handed
individual readily discerns signal changes when conducting an similar pattern is also observed in a bi-manual case. However,
experiment exclusively with their dominant hand. However, there is a difference between Tr of the uni-manual and the
their perception experiences a minor decline when performing bi-manual setting for both hands.
the same experiment with their non-dominant hand. During
phase III of the experiment, when both hands are engaged in TABLE II
ρ AND Tr FOR A LEFT- HANDED SUBJECT
the tasks, the perception further decreases for both hands, with
the dominant hand exhibiting a slightly superior perceptual Experimentation Phase AL ρ Tr (ms)
capability compared to the non-dominant hand. The corre- I - DH 0.3650 0.1120 408.1397
sponding ρ values for each of these phases for the same subject II - NH 0.3428 0.1116 404.5294
are shown in Table I. From these, it is observed that AL, ρ, and III - DH 0.3896 0.1553 421. 7670
average response time Tr are smaller for the dominant hand III - NH 0.4385 0.1415 421.2940
as compared to the non-dominant hand in both uni-manual as
well as bi-manual perception. It indicates that the dominant In a similar manner, from the recorded responses of each
hand has better perception than the non-dominant hand. It is of the subjects, the values of AL and ρ are obtained.
also observed that ρ and Tr have been increased during the
bi-manual tasks as compared to the uni-manual tasks, thus 1) Statistical inference: The comparison of ρ for all the
degrading the perception of both hands. subjects is carried out using paired t-tests for all three phases of
Similarly, Fig. 6 and Table II show the response of one experimentation as described in Table III. For all four cases of
of the left-handed subjects. Here, we see the same pattern as comparison, we obtained p-values smaller than 0.05, indicating
observed in the case of the right-handed subject in the uni- the difference in the mean of threshold values of the respective
manual case. Also, the perceptual capability of both hands cases of comparisons.
reduces during a bi-manual discrimination task. However, in Further, we carried out a comparison between the dominant
phase III of the experiment, the non-dominant hand slightly hand and non-dominant hand perception thresholds using the
performed better than the dominant hand. In the uni-manual Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test for
case, Tr is observed to be nearly equal for both hands. A bi-manual and uni-manual perception of force signals. For a

TABLE III
C OMPARISON OF ρ USING PAIRED T- TEST FOR α = 0.05. H ERE , M
STANDS FOR THE GROUP MEAN OF THE PERCEPTUAL THRESHOLD AND SD
FOR THE CORRESPONDING STANDARD DEVIATION .
Comparison of ρ between t-value p-value Confidence Interval
DH in uni-manual (M = 0.1929, SD = 0.0792)
and bi-manual (M = 0.2354, SD = 0.0915) scenario
2.5369 0.02128 [0.007155, 0.07785]
NH in uni-manual (M = 0.2342, SD = 0.0914)
3.0467 0.00729 [0.0127, 0.06988]
and bi-manual (M = 0.2755, SD = 0.0978) scenario
DH (M = 0.1929, SD = 0.0792) and NH
(M = 0.2342, SD = 0.0914) in uni-manual scenario
4.1305 0.0006991 [0.02023, 0.06247]
DH (M = 0.2354, SD = 0.0915) and NH
2.973 0.008532 [0.01165, 0.06862]
(M = 0.2755, SD = 0.0978) in bi-manual scenario
significance level α = 0.05, we obtained a p-value of 0.000005
and F ratio of 11.9754. From the ANOVA based statistical
analysis, it is evident that the means of all four groups are
statistically different. Thus, for the considered experimental
setup, our assertion that the bi-manual and uni-manual percep-
tion threshold differs from each other is statistically supported.
As seen in Tables I and II, there seems to be variation
in Tr for individual subjects. Thus, we performed a similar
analysis for Tr using paired t-test. It is observed that there
is no significant difference between the means of respective
Tr . We used a Repeated Measures ANOVA test to further
evaluate the variations in Tr between the dominant and non-
dominant hands for bi-manual and uni-manual perception of
force signals. For α = 0.05, a p-value of 0.3300 and an
associated F ratio of 1.1706 were obtained from the analysis.
The statistical tests did not find significant differences between
the four cases, making it inconclusive whether the dominant
hand responds faster than the non-dominant hand in uni-
manual versus the bi-manual conditions based on average
response time.
V. C ONCLUSION
The study investigated and compared the perceptual thresh-
olds for bi-manual and uni-manual haptic perception. The
statistical analysis showed that the threshold values were sub-
stantially higher in the bi-manual haptic perception condition,
indicating a reduced ability to perceive haptic information
while utilizing both hands simultaneously. The study also
discovered significant variations in perceptual threshold values
between dominant and non-dominant hands, showing varia-
tions in perceptual responsiveness between the two hands.
These findings emphasize the significance of investigating hap-
tic perception in uni-manual and bi-manual settings. By better
comprehending such information, one can create interfaces
that provide users with better-optimized haptic feedback.
R EFERENCES
[1] V. Hayward, O. R. Astley, M. Cruz-Hernandez, D. Grant, and G. Robles-
De-La-Torre, “Haptic interfaces and devices,” Sensor review, vol. 24,
no. 1, pp. 16–29, 2004.
[2] C. Pacchierotti, D. Prattichizzo, and K. J. Kuchenbecker, “Cutaneous
feedback of fingertip deformation and vibration for palpation in robotic
surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 63, no. 2,
pp. 278–287, 2015.
[3] L. A. Jones and H. Z. Tan, “Application of psychophysical techniques
to haptic research,” IEEE transactions on haptics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp.
268–284, 2012.
[4] Weber’s law. [Online]. Available: https://www.britannica.com/science/
Webers-law
6
[5] W. M. B. Tiest and A. M. Kappers, “Cues for haptic perception of
compliance,” IEEE transactions on haptics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 189–199,
2009.
[6] M. A. Garcı́a-Pérez, R. Alcalá-Quintana, R. L. Woods, and E. Peli,
“Psychometric functions for detection and discrimination with and
without flankers,” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, vol. 73, pp.
829–853, 2011.
[7] F. A. Wichmann and N. J. Hill, “The psychometric function: I. fitting,
sampling, and goodness of fit,” Perception & psychophysics, vol. 63,
no. 8, pp. 1293–1313, 2001.
[8] K. Zchaluk and D. H. Foster, “Model-free estimation of the psychometric
function,” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, vol. 71, no. 6, pp.
1414–1425, 2009.
[9] O. Dabeer and S. Chaudhuri, “Analysis of an adaptive sampler based
on weber’s law,” IEEE transactions on signal processing, vol. 59, no. 4,
pp. 1868–1878, 2010.
[10] S. Chaudhuri and A. Bhardwaj, “Kinesthetic perception,” A Machine
Learning Approach, 2018.
[11] P. Hinterseer, S. Hirche, S. Chaudhuri, E. Steinbach, and M. Buss,
“Perception-based data reduction and transmission of haptic data in
telepresence and teleaction systems,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 588–597, 2008.
[12] V. Gokhale, J. Nair, S. Chaudhuri, and S. Kakade, “Network-aware
adaptive sampling for low bitrate telehaptic communication,” in Haptics:
Science, Technology, and Applications: 11th International Conference,
EuroHaptics 2018, Pisa, Italy, June 13-16, 2018, Proceedings, Part II
11. Springer, 2018, pp. 660–672.
[13] S. Kakade and S. Chaudhuri, “Perceptually compressive communication
of interactive telehaptic signal,” in International Conference on Human
Haptic Sensing and Touch Enabled Computer Applications. Springer,
2020, pp. 480–488.
[14] H. Pongrac, P. Hinterseer, J. Kammerl, E. Steinbach, B. Färber,
U. Muenchen, and T. Muenchen, “Limitations of human 3d force
discrimination,” Human-Centered Robotics Systems, vol. 2006, 2006.
[15] I. L. Elfant, “Correlation between kinesthetic discrimination & manual
dexterity.” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy: Official
Publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association, vol. 31,
no. 1, pp. 23–28, 1977.
[16] H. Ono, “Difference threshold for stimulus length under simultaneous
and nonsimultaneous viewing conditions,” Perception & Psychophysics,
vol. 2, pp. 201–207, 1967.
[17] E. Weber, “Der tastsinn und das gemeinfühl: In: Handwörterbuch der
physiologie, vol 3 (wagner r, ed),” Braunschweig, Germany: Vieweg,
1846.
[18] A. M. Kappers and J. J. Koenderink, “Haptic unilateral and bilateral
discrimination of curved surfaces,” Perception, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 739–
749, 1996.
[19] E. Galofaro, E. D’Antonio, N. Lotti, F. Patané, M. Casadio, and
L. Masia, “Bimanual motor strategies and handedness role in human-
robot haptic interaction,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 2023.
[20] M. Raghu Prasad, S. Purswani, and M. Manivannan, “Force jnd for
right index finger using contra lateral force matching paradigm,” in
ICoRD’13: Global Product Development. Springer, 2013, pp. 365–
375.
[21] C. Giachritsis, J. Barrio, M. Ferre, A. Wing, and J. Ortego, “Evaluation
of weight perception during unimanual and bimanual manipulation
of virtual objects,” in World Haptics 2009-Third Joint EuroHaptics
conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment
and Teleoperator Systems. IEEE, 2009, pp. 629–634.
[22] C. J. Dowell, J. F. Norman, J. R. Moment, L. M. Shain, H. F. Norman,
F. Phillips, and A. M. Kappers, “Haptic shape discrimination and
interhemispheric communication,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, p.
377, 2018.
[23] J. Awed, I. H. Elhajj, and N. Slobodenyuk, “Haptic force perception in
bimanual manipulation,” in Haptics: Perception, Devices, Mobility, and
Communication: International Conference, EuroHaptics 2012, Tampere,
Finland, June 13-15, 2012 Proceedings, Part II. Springer, 2012, pp.
1–6.
[24] “Omni device guide,” https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.3dsystems.com/
binaries/Sensable/UserGuide/Omni Device Guide.pdf, Feb 2013.
[25] “Hapi manual for version 1.4.0,” https://h3d.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/02/H3DAPI 2.4/doc/HAPI\%20Manual.pdf, 2019.
[26] O. F. Nadjarbashi, Z. Najdovski, and S. Nahavandi, “Event-driven data
transmission in variable-delay network,” in 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, 2017,
pp. 1681–1686.