ArticleExperimental brain research2024
Encoding contact size using static and dynamic electrotactile finger stimulation: natural decoding vs. trained cues.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- NeuraLoop: a high bandwidth closed-loop human-machine interface.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electrotactile stimulation through matrix electrodes is a promising technology to restore high-resolution tactile feedback in extended reality applications. One of the fundamental tactile effects that should be simulated is the change in the size of the contact between the finger and a virtual object. The present study investigated how participants perceive the increase of stimulation area when stimulating the index finger using static or dynamic (moving) stimuli produced by activating 1 to 6 electrode pads. To assess the ability to interpret the stimulation from the natural cues (natural decoding), without any prior training, the participants were instructed to draw the size of the stimulated area and identify the size difference when comparing two consecutive stimulations. To investigate if other "non-natural" cues can improve the size estimation, the participants were asked to enumerate the number of active pads following a training protocol. The results demonstrated that participants could perceive the change in size without prior training (e.g., the estimated area correlated with the stimulated area, p < 0.001; ≥ two-pad difference recognized with > 80% success rate). However, natural decoding was also challenging, as the response area changed gradually and sometimes in complex patterns when increasing the number of active pads (e.g., four extra pads needed for the statistically significant difference). Nevertheless, by training the participants to utilize additional cues the limitations of natural perception could be compensated. After the training, the mismatch in the activated and estimated number of pads was less than one pad regardless of the stimulus size. Finally, introducing the movement of the stimulus substantially improved discrimination (e.g., 100% median success rate to recognize ≥ one-pad difference). The present study, therefore, provides insights into stimulation size perception, and practical guidelines on how to modulate pad activation to change the perceived size in static and dynamic scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.