ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
During haptic communication, the central nervous system compensates distinctly for delay and noise.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Physically connected humans have been shown to exploit the exchange of haptic forces and tactile information to improve their performance in joint action tasks. As human interactions are increasingly mediated through robots and networks it is important to understand the impact that network features such as lag and noise may have on human behaviour. In this paper, we investigated interaction with a human-like robot controller that provides similar haptic communication behaviour as human-human interaction and examined the influence and compensation mechanisms for delay and noise on haptic communication. The results of our experiments show that participants can perceive a difference between noise and delay, and make use of compensation mechanisms to preserve performance in both cases. However, while noise is compensated for by increasing co-contraction, delay compensation could not be explained by this strategy. Instead, computational modelling suggested that a distinct mechanism is used to compensate for the delay and yield an efficient haptic communication.
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.