Can your eyes see what your hands feel?
Sagar Patil 200801067 Abstract: Recently, a lot of research interest is seen in the area of automating learning from other sensors than a camera. In this experiment, we try to check if such a learning can happen for humans. Introduction: There is no denying that vision is perhaps our most important sensory system. We can’t imagine living the remainder of our lives blind-folded. Scientists have tried to uncover the mechanism of vision learning and use the same principle in robots. There has been a considerable research in this region. But the central idea of this paper is to suggest an algorithm to implement tactile learning for robots. Research problem: Often in the absence of light or in a blindfold (like in a hostage situation where the kidnapper doesn’t want to let you know the place of hiding), one must make use of the other senses to gather as much information as possible. In this experiment, we are going to see if what is felt by the hand at one time can be recalled later Experiment: Objective The objective of this experiment is to see if learning via tactile vision is possible. Hypothesis The expected model is that the eyes try to form a mental image of the inputs the touch provides. Once the image is clear, it can be recalled at a later time with relative ease. Participants: The participants in this experiment belonged in the age group of 19-22 years, all males of age of Indian origin. They were of various regions of the country and hence there wasn’t any particular region that were in majority, thus removing any bias due to a particular region from the experiment.
Those getting a minimum number of correct guesses (5 out of 10 in this case) go to the next round. Finally. Given below is the raw data that was gathered. Each participant will be given a few samples (these will be smaller than the standard mazes that will be used for testing). The ones marked with (Y) are the ones that the subject could identify correctly. when the participant is “competent” enough to carry out the experiment. some options are shown to guess what the participant feel is the maze he/she felt. When the given maze is completed.Stimulus material: An image like the one shown will be given to the subject to feel. Task: The participant is given a few trials to get a feel of what’s to happen. After the participant has completely felt through the image. a maze similar in design (a punched maze) will be presented. all males but from varying backgrounds. Once he/she has felt the image. The bigger dots represent the punched dots.
This experiment was conducted on a group of 16. the subject will be given options to choose from. The values in the last four columns represent the time taken for a subject to complete the test (includes both the time taken to complete the maze as well as the time it took to recognize the maze from the given set of options).
Procedure: The experiment consists of two stages: the learning stage and the testing stage.
. He/She is supposed to choose the image which he/she thinks matches best with what he/she felt. A few small punched images are given to the participant to feel after he/she has been blindfolded. one of which is the one he/she was given to feel. which the participant is to complete. The total time taken to recognize the maze is then recorded. After the image has been felt completely (the conductor of the experiment is to make sure that the entire image has been felt). he/she will be given a list of images. The participant is supposed to guess which one was the image he/she felt. the participant is shown options of images to choose from.
P < 0. Maze 3 T = 1.761 2.05 level and higher.
T-Test Results I then did a t-test (taking two columns at a time) to check if the inter-maze solving times are “statistically significant” i.05 -1.001 4.01
P > 0. Level (Two-tailed) 0. These are the following results: Maze1. are the solving times following some global trend.distribution table
df 13 Sig.01 2.145 0.05 1.14 ← critical t-values ← significant or not?
P < 0.Subject No.001
The difference between your means is statistically significant at the P < 0.001
The difference between means is not significantly different at the above significance levels.10
P > 0.001 -4.
.14 ← critical t-values ← significant or not?
P > 0.977 0.680 t.10 0. Level (Two-tailed) 0.01
P > 0.10 0.145 0.
Maze 2.distribution table
df 13 Sig.761 -2.01 -2.977 0.05
P > 0.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Level 1 Number of correctly guessed items 9 8 10 10 9 2* 10 10 9 8 7 5 8 9 10 9
Level 2 Maze1(s)
157(Y) 79(Y) 102(Y) 212(Y) 199 255 206(Y) 322(Y) 190(Y) 259 100(Y) 124 141 133(Y) 316(Y) 145(Y)
109 70(Y) 92 147(Y) 181(Y) 126(Y) 153(Y) 196(Y) 143(Y) 131(Y) 125 144(Y) 135(Y) 191(Y) 164(Y) 90(Y)
90(Y) 73(Y) 87 132(Y) 163(Y) 138(Y) 100(Y) 72(Y) 128(Y) 77 137(Y) 148(Y) 150(Y) 165(Y) 198 128(Y)
79 77(Y) 62(Y) 112(Y) 123 159 72(Y) 48(Y) 87 102 99(Y) 109 136(Y) 127(Y) 142(Y) 103
Number of correctly guessed mazes 2 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 3 1 3 2 3 4 3 3
*The subject was allowed to take the second level of mazes and surprisingly he did quite well.05
P > 0. Maze2 T = -2.
there is a decrease in the solving times.
Conclusion The result of the experiment was in accordance with the hypothesis.001
The difference between your means is statistically significant at the P < 0.10
P < 0. Maze 4 T = -3.14 ← critical t-values ← significant or not?
P < 0.524 t.001 -4. The y axis represents the time in sec it took to complete a particular maze. though the slopes of the lines (which are an indicator of the learning) are not steadily decreasing. Level (Two-tailed) 0.
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 Series1
As can be seen clearly.10 0.
.761 -2.Maze 3.
Relationship between average maze solving time and maze number I also plotted the average time it took to solve the maze and then plotted these values for all mazes.05
P < 0.01
P > 0.977 0.01 level and higher.05 -1.145 0.distribution table
df 13 Sig.01 -2. The x axis shows the maze number.
Roland “Hemispheric contribution to exploration of space through the visual and tactile modality”. I would also like to thank the subjects of the experiment for bearing with me and being patient in doing the experiment.Future research The definition of a simple maze was based simply on the size of the maze and not on the path length within the maze. Acknowledgement I am grateful to Prof. Thomas P. Amitash Ojha & Mrs. Access Methods. The time could be divided as time taken for solving and for guessing and further analysis be conducted. The total time for solving and recognizing the maze was recorded. Gilad Jacobson. Way and Kenneth E. G. Nouchine Hadjikhani and Per E. E. Madeleine Keehner and Richard K. P. Barner
. I thank the presentation panel for providing valuable feedback for the future work. Talma Hendler. References “Seeing with the Hands and with the Eyes: The Contributions of Haptic Cues to Anatomical Shape Recognition in Surgery”. and Image Manipulation”. Amir Amedi.. De Renzi. Lowe “Cross-Modal Transfer of Information between the Tactile and the Visual Representations in the Human Brain: A Positron Emission Tomographic Study”. This is a possible direction for improvement. Kavita Vemuri for help with some design issues. Rafael Malach and Ehud Zohary “Automatic Visual to Tactile Translation—Part I: Human Factors.. “Convergence of Visual and Tactile Shape Processing in the Human Lateral Occipital Complex”. Faglioni. Scotti.