Visual-Haptic Compliance Perception

  • Roberta L. KlatzkyEmail author
  • Bing Wu
Part of the Springer Series on Touch and Haptic Systems book series (SSTHS)


This chapter deals with the perception of compliance of objects with rigid surfaces when vision is present. Compliance (or its inverse, stiffness) is one of a number of properties that can be called “higher-order,” in the sense that it is computed as a combination of components that are physically independent. For objects having rigid surfaces, the components of compliance are position and force. We consider how each component is conveyed by different sensory modalities used for the interaction, vision and touch. This analysis highlights in particular that vision predominantly contributes to the sensing of position, whereas haptics (active touch) contributes to force sensing. We will further discuss integration of information across the senses; in particular, when such integration occurs in relation to the combination of the components of compliance. Finally, we describe applications of research on multi-modal compliance perception.


Component Property Haptic Perception Haptic Rendering Virtual Spring Stiffness Estimate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barbagli F, Salisbury K, Ho C, Spence C, Tan HZ (2006) Haptic discrimination of force direction and the influence of visual information. ACM Trans Appl Percept 3:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bethea BT, Okamura AM, Kitagawa M, Fitton TP, Cattaneo SM, Gott VL, Baumgartner WA, Yuh DD (2004) Application of haptic feedback to robotic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 14(3):191–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cellini C, Kaim L, Drewing K (2013) Visual and haptic integration in the estimation of softness of deformable objects. Perception 4(8):516–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curtis DW, Attneave F, Harrington TL (1968) A test of a two-stage model for magnitude estimation. Attention Percept Psychophys 3:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drewing K, Ramisch A, Bayer F (2009) Haptic, visual and visuo-haptic softness judgments for objects with deformable surfaces. In: Proceedings of world haptics 2009, third joint EuroHaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems. Piscataway, NJ, IEEE, pp 640–645Google Scholar
  6. Ellis RR, Lederman SJ (1993) The role of haptic versus visual volume cues in the size-weight illusion. Attention Percept Psychophys 55(3):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fechner GT (1860) Elemente der Psychophysik. Breitkopf and Härtel, Leipzig, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. Gepshtein S, Burge J, Ernst MO, Banks MS (2005) The combination of vision and touch depends on spatial proximity. J Vis 5(11):1013–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horeman T, Rodrigues SP, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Jansen FW, Dankelman J (2012) Visual force feedback in laparoscopic training. Surg Endosc 26(1):242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeon S, Choi S (2009) Haptic Augmented reality: taxonomy and an example of stiffness modulation. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 18:387–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones LA (1986) Perception of force and weight: theory and research. Psychol Bull 100:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones LA, Hunter IW (1990) A perceptual analysis of stiffness. Exp Brain Res 79:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keyson DV (2000) Estimation of virtually perceived length. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 9:394–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klatzky RL, Wu B, Stetten G (2010) The disembodied eye: consequences of displacing perception from action. Vis Res 50:2618–2626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuschel M, Di Luca M, Buss M, Klatzky RL (2010) Combination and integration in the perception of visual-haptic compliance information. IEEE Trans Haptics 3:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lanca M, Bryant D (1995) Effect of orientation in haptic reproduction of line length. Percept Mot Skills 80:1291–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michaels CF, De Vries MM (1998) Higher and lower order variables in the visual perception of relative pulling force. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:526–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paré M, Carnahan H, Smith AM (2002) Magnitude estimation of tangential force applied to the fingerpad. Exp Brain Res 142:342–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seizova-Cajic T (1998) Size perception by vision and kinesthesia. Attention Percep Psychophys 60:705–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shen Y, Zelen M (2001) Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations. J Clin Oncol 19:3490–3499Google Scholar
  22. Srinivasan MA, Beauregard GL, Brock DO (1996) The impact of visual information on haptic perception of stiffness in virtual environments. ASME Dyn Syst Control Div 58:555–559Google Scholar
  23. Stanley G (1966) Haptic and kinesthetic estimates of length. Psychon Sci 5:377–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stetten Gl, Wu B, Klatzky R, Galeotti J, Siegel M, Lee R, f Mah F, Eller A, Schuman J, Hollis R (2011) Hand-held force magnifier for surgical instruments. Information processing in computer-assisted interventions. Lecture notes in computer science, 6689, Springer, Berlin. pp 90–100Google Scholar
  25. Stevens JC, Mack JD (1959) Scales of apparent force. J Exp Psychol 58:405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stevens SS (1975) Psychophysics: introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Sun Y, Hollerbach JM, Mascaro SA (2008) Predicting fingertip forces by imaging coloration changes in the fingernail and surrounding skin. IEEE Trans Biome Eng 55:2363–2371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tan HZ, Durlach NI, Beauregard GL, Srinivasan MA (1995) Manual discrimination of compliance using active pinch grasp: the roles of force and work cues. Attention Percep Psychophys 57:495–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teghtsoonian M, Teghtsoonian R (1965) Seen and felt length. Psychon Sci 3:465–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teghtsoonian M, Teghtsoonian R (1970) Two varieties of perceived length. Attention Percept Psychophys 8:389–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Valdez AB, Amazeen EL (2008) Sensory and perceptual interactions in weight perception. Attention Percept Psychophys 70:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Beers RJ, Sittig AC (1999) Integration of proprioceptive and visual position information: an experimentally supported model. J Neurophysiol 81:1355–1364Google Scholar
  33. Varadharajan V, Klatzky R, Unger B, Swendsen R, Hollis R (2008) Haptic rendering and psychophysical evaluation of a virtual three-dimensional helical spring. In: Proceedings of the 16th symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environments and teleoperator systems. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  34. Wang X, Ananthasuresh GK, Ostrowski JP (2001) Vision-based sensing of forces in elastic objects. Sens Actuators A Phys 94:142–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White PA (2012) The experience of force: the role of haptic experience of forces in visual perception of object motion and interactions, mental simulation, and motion-related judgments. Psychol Bull 138:589–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woodworth R, Schlossberg H (1960) Experimental psychology, Revised edn. Henry Holt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu B, Klatzky RL, Shelton D, Stetten G (2008) Mental concatenation of perceptually and cognitively specified depth to represent locations in near space. Exp Brain Res 184:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu B, Klatzky RL, Hollis R, Stetten G (2012) Visual perception of viscoelasticity in virtual materials. Presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the psychonomic society, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Nov 2012Google Scholar
  39. Wu W, Basdogan C, Srinivasan MA (1999) Visual, haptic, and bimodal perception of size and stiffness in virtual environments. ASME Dyn Syst Control Div 67:19–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.College of Technology & InnovationArizona State UniversityMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations