MEMBERS: PRERIT MISHRA VENKATESH H R LASITHA DANANJAYA RANAWAKAGE SHAKTHI VINAYA C

OBJECTIVE

 To

analyze the contact forces in action when a push button of a mobile phone is activated by the index finger of the right hand by tactile sensing methods.
 Based on the analysis we try to find the closest match to the human hand from the given two artificial hands (soft and stiff) depending on their force profiles

This project focuses on analysis of contact forces between a hand and a device. Tactile sensing is the process of determining physical properties and events through contact with objects in the world.TACTILE SENSING  The term tactile refers to the somatosensory system or more commonly the sense of touch. . The human sense of touch is the main source of insight and inspiration for the development of robotic tactile sensing.

TYPES : Kinesthetic sensing .perception of the limb motion and forces with internal receptors.perception of contact information with receptors in the skin. Cutaneous sensing .HUMAN TACTILE SENSING A tactile sensor is a device which receives and responds to a signal or stimulus having to do with force. .

5mm x 10mm) .EXPERIMENT OBJECTS FingerTPS II for Pressure Sensing Tactile Mobile Device Used (13.

. average and peak force measurements. Precise force data and video images can be captured and displayed in real-time via PPS’ powerful new Chameleon software. which has Tivo-like versatility in recording timeseries.SENSOR SPECIFICATIONS FingerTPS™ system utilizes highly sensitive capacitivebased pressure sensors to reliably quantify forces applied by the human hand(s).

.

Simple media isolation is achieved when one capacitance is parameter modulated and the other capacitance within the half-bridge circuit is an unmodulated reference capacitance .CAPACITIVE BASED PRESSURE SENSOR The sensor capacitances are arranged in a push-pull. half bridge configuration in which both of the capacitors are parameter-modulated.

 These sensors usually require a dynamic excitation and all capacitive designs contain an internal oscillator and signal demodulator to produce static outputs  Operating temperature range from -40ºC to +120ºC. .

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP .

SENSORS AND THEIR POSITION .

. soft and stiff) in a sequence. Samples were collected for each type of hand (human. The live data was recorded and stored.METHODOLOGY A band-aid type stress sensor is attached to the tip of the right index finger. The FingerTPS stress sensor was calibrated by a 2kg load applied to the calibrator pad of the sensor system.

. The time domain plots of the sample data were generated and the force profiles were observed. The peak value of forces along with the time duration of the forces were analyzed. The reason for randomness is to convert unknown systematic differences (between experimental units or force profile of subjects) into random quantities whose behavior is controlled by the laws of probability.ANALYSIS The samples obtained were randomized.

Human Hand Mean .

Soft Hand .

Stiff Hand .

8 0.4 Soft hand 0 50 100 150 200 1.8 0.8 1.4 1.2 250 300 Time B Stiff hand Force(Kg) 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 Force(Kg) 1.6 0.ANALYSIS 1.6 1.0 0.2 1.2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Human hand Time .6 1.

MAXIMA & MINIMA DETECTED Max Min .

. The actual value is then obtained by the calculating the difference of the maxima with the previous minima. ANOVA results were used to compare the mean and the variance between two types of hands.ANOVA ANALYSIS The maximum and minimum values are calculated from the samples using a peak detector algorithm.

ANOVA results for soft hand vs human hand ANOVA results for stiff hand vs human hand .

29Kg. soft and stiff hand is 0. and 0.26Kg respectively. A graph is plotted for mean and variance and from the results obtained it can be observed that the stiff hand has a closer behavior to human hand. 0. Another observation made from the data is that the minimum value of force required to actuate the push button of the device for the human.26Kg is enough to activate the button.39Kg. .ANOVA ANALYSIS The above ANOVA results show the variation of the data within the group and between the groups. This shows that a value as low as 0.

RESULTS .

This would mean that an actuator running the prosthetic hand would require less power to drive it. The force required to activate the push button was lesser in case of the stiff hand.CONCLUSION From the stochastic analysis it can be seen that the stiff hand is a closer match to the Human hand based upon the ANOVA analysis. .

vol. Radwin and S. Popovic. 42–48. [2] J. Webster. Ed. New York: Wiley. 713–717.” IEEE Trans. Towards humanlike social touch for prosthetics and sociable robotics: Three.” Sens.dimensional finite element simulations of synthetic finger phalanges. pp. In: Advances in Robotics. 35. Fellows and A. pp. New York: Oxford Univ. pp. B. [7] R. D. Jesse N. Human Factors Society 33rd Annu. 5744. 2009. “The use of force sensing resistors in ergonomic tool design. Electron Devices. 1992 [8] Y. L.finger static pinch prehension. 25–27. 1991 [5] Cabibihan JJ. Webster. .. 275–288. 1988. H. Vol. Press. pp. Kim JH. Vadakkepat P. P. 88–98. editor. S. Freivalds. Lee and K. Pressure sensors: Selection and Application. Eds.REFERENCES [1] P. pp. 1992. [4] D. B. “Tactile sensing: Technology and applications.” in Neural Prostheses: Replacing Motor Function After Disease or Disability. New York: Marcel Dekker. 80–86.” in Proc. and D. “External finger forces in submaximal five. G. “Artificial sensors suitable for closed-loop control of FNS. G. 1982. vol. Dario. ED-29. Wise. Meeting. 1989. Actuators A. 251–256. pp. “A batch-fabricated silicon capacitive pressure transducer with low temperature sensitivity. R. Peckham. Oh. Springer. Ge SS.. Stein. [6] G.” Ergonom. G. Tandeske. Ge SS. [3] J. Tactile Sensors for Robotics and Medicine.