Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 155, Issue 2, pp 173–185 | Cite as

Obstacle avoidance during locomotion using haptic information in normally sighted humans

  • Aftab E. Patla
  • T. Claire Davies
  • Ewa Niechwiej
Research Article

Abstract

The goal of the study was to examine the accuracy and precision of control of adaptive locomotion using haptic information in normally sighted humans before and after practice. Obstacle avoidance paradigm was used to study adaptive locomotion; individuals were required to approach and step over different sizes of obstacles placed in the travel path under three sensory conditions: full vision (FV); restricted lower visual field (RLVF) using blinders on custom glass frames; and no vision (NV) using haptic information only. In the NV condition, individuals were a given an appropriate-sized cane to guide their locomotion. Footfall patterns were recorded using the GAITRite system, and lead and trail limb trajectories were monitored using the OPTOTRAK system, which tracked infrared diodes placed on the toes and the cane. Approach step lengths were reduced for the haptic condition: this slowed the forward progression and allowed greater time for haptic exploration, which ranged from 2.5 to 4 s and consisted of horizontal cane movements (to detect the width and relative location of the obstacle) and vertical cane movements (to detect the height of the obstacle). Based on feed-forward and on-line sensory (under both vision and haptic conditions) information about location of the obstacle relative to the individual, variability of foot placement reduced as the individual came closer to the obstacle, as has been shown in the literature. The only difference was that the reduction in variability of foot placement under haptic condition occurred in the last step compared with earlier under vision. Considering that the obstacle is detected only when the cane comes in contact, as opposed to vision condition when it is visible earlier, this difference is understandable. Variability and magnitude of lead and trail limb elevation for the haptic condition was higher than the RLVF and FV conditions. In contrast, only the magnitude of lead and trail limb elevation was higher in the RLVF condition when compared with the FV condition. This suggests that it is the inability of the haptic sense to provide accurate information about obstacle characteristics compared with the visual system, and not simple caution that lead to higher limb elevation. In the haptic and RLVF condition when vision was unavailable for on-line monitoring of lead limb elevation, kinesthetic information from lead limb elevation was used to fine-tune trail limb elevation. Both the control of approach phase and limb elevation findings held up even after sufficient practice to learn haptic guidance of adaptive locomotion in the second experiment. These results provide a clear picture of the efficacy of the haptic sensory system to guide locomotion in a cluttered environment.

Keywords

Haptic sense Vision Obstacle avoidance Locomotion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Office of Naval Research, USA.

References

  1. Bongers RM, Schellingerhout R, van Grinsven R, Smitsman AW (2002) Variables of the touch technique that influence the safety of cane walkers. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 96:516–531Google Scholar
  2. Burton G (1992) Nonvisual judgment of the crossability of path gaps. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:698–713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carello C, Fitzpatrick P, Turvey MT (1992) Haptic probing: perceiving the length of a probe and the distance of a surface probed. Percept Psychophys 51:580–598PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chou L, Draganich LF (1998) Placing the trailing foot closer to an obstacle reduces flexion of the hip, knee, and ankle to increase the risk of tripping. J Biomech 31:685–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Drew T, Juang W, Kably B, Lavoie S (1996) Role of the motor cortex in the control of visually triggered gait modifications. Canadian Journal of Physiology Pharmacology 74:426–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibson JJ (1966) The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Gordon AM, Forssberg H, Johansson RS, Westling G (1991) The integration of haptically acquired size information in the programming of precision grip. Exp Brain Res 83:483–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gordon G (1978) Active touch. The mechanism of recognition of objects by manipulation: a multi-disciplinary approach. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Jansson G (1990) Non-visual guidance of walking. In: Warren R, Wertheim AH (eds) Perception and control of egomotion. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 507–521Google Scholar
  10. Jeka JJ, Lackner JR (1994) Fingertip contact influences human postural control. Exp Brain Res 100:495–502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeka JJ, Easton RD, Bentzen BL, Lackner JR (1996) Haptic cues for orientation and postural control in sighted and blind individuals. Percept Psychophys 58:409–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson RS, Hsiao SS (1992) Neural mechanisms of tactual form and texture perception. Annu Rev Neurosci 15:227–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ (1995) Identifying objects from a haptic glance. Percept Psychophys 57:1111–1123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Klatzky RL, Lederman S, Reed C (1987) There’s more to touch than meets the eye: the salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. J Exp Psychol Gen 116:356–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL, Collins R, Wardell J (1987) Exploring environments by hand and foot: time-based neuristics for encoding distance in movement space. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 13:606–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee DN, Lishman JR, Thomson JA (1982) Regulation of gait in long jumping. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 8:448–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loomis JM, Klatzky RL, Golledge RG, Cicinelli JG, Pellegrino JW, Fry P (1993) Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: assessment of path integration ability. J Exp Psychol Gen 122:73–91Google Scholar
  18. Mohagheghi AA, Moraes R, Patla AE (2003) The effects of distant and on-line visual information on the control of approach phase and step over an obstacle during locomotion. Exp Brain Res (in-press)Google Scholar
  19. Patla AE (1997) Understanding the roles of vision in the control of human locomotion. Gait Posture 5:54–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patla AE (1998) How is human gait controlled by vision? Ecological Psychology 10:287–302Google Scholar
  21. Patla AE, Rietdyk S (1993) Visual control of limb trajectory over obstacles during locomotion: effect of obstacle height and width. Gait Posture 1:45–60Google Scholar
  22. Patla AE, Vickers JN (1997) Where and when do we look as we approach and step over an obstacle in the travel path. Neuroreport 8:3661–3665PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Patla AE, Martin C, Rietdyk S, Prentice S (1996a) Locomotor patterns of the lead and trail limbs as solid and fragile obstacles are stepped over: some insights into the role of vision during locomotion. J Mot Behav 28:35–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Patla AE, Adkin A, Martin C, Holden R, Prentice S (1996b) Characteristics of voluntary visual sampling of the environment during locomotion over different terrains. Exp Brain Res 112:513–522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramsey VK, Blasch BB, Kita A, Johnson BF (1999) A biomechanical evaluation of visually impaired persons’ gait and long cane mechanics. J Rehabil Res Dev 36(4)Google Scholar
  26. Schellingerhout R, Bongers RM, van Grinsven R, Smitsman AW, Van Galen GP (2001) Improving obstacle detection by redesign of walking canes for blind persons. Ergonomics 44:513–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schenkman B (1986) Identification of ground materials with the aid of tapping sounds and vibrations of long canes for the blind. Ergonomics 29:985–998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwartz M (1999) Haptic perception of the distance walked when blindfolded. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:852–865PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Solomon HY, Turvey MT (1988) Haptically perceiving the distances reachable with hand-held objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 14:404–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sorensen KL, Hollands MA, Patla AE (2002) The effects of human ankle muscle vibration on posture and balance during adaptive locomotion. Exp Brain Res 143:24–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sunanato J, Nakata H (1998) Indirect tactual discrimination of heights by blind and blindfolded sighted subjects. Percept Mot Skills 86:383–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wall R (2002) Biomechanical movements in experienced cane users with and without visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 96:501–515Google Scholar
  33. Wall R (2003) Biomechanical substrates of the two-point touch cane technique: a review of research. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 96:86–97Google Scholar
  34. Wall RS, Ashmead DH (2002) Changes in biomechanical features of the two-point touch technique as it is learned. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 96:501–515Google Scholar
  35. Welsh RL, Blasch BB (1980) Foundation of orientation and mobility. American Foundation for the Blind, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aftab E. Patla
    • 1
  • T. Claire Davies
    • 1
  • Ewa Niechwiej
    • 1
  1. 1.Gait & Posture Lab, Department of KinesiologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations