Cited by 118Motor Control and AdaptationTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsTactile and Sensory Interactions

Effects of haptic guidance and disturbance on motor learning: Potential advantage of haptic disturbance

Lee, Jaebong, Seungmoon Choi·2010·2010 IEEE Haptics Symposium

Abstract

One of the primary goals of haptic guidance is to facilitate the learning of complex human motor skills by providing haptic cues that are helpful to induce desired movements. Nevertheless, a majority of previous studies have found that haptic guidance is ineffective, or sometimes even detrimental, to motor skill learning. In this paper, we propose the opposite concept, haptic disturbance, and evaluate its efficacy. In haptic disturbance, haptic cues that interfere with the movements of a learner are presented during training. We designed two methods of haptic disturbance using repulsive and noise-like forces, respectively. The effects of these methods were experimentally assessed, comparatively with the conventional methods of visual learning only and progressive haptic guidance. The motor task was to track a dot moving on a 2D plane with a haptic interface operated with one arm. We found that during training, the progressive haptic guidance showed the best tracking accuracy, but in immediate and delayed retention tests, the noise-like haptic disturbance led to the best performance. The results suggest high potentials for haptic disturbance to be a general strategy for expediting the motor learning process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/haptic.2010.5444635

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Random noise-based perturbations were more effective than haptic guidance in a path-following task in healthy subjects.

    “Random noise-based perturbations were shown to be more effective than haptic guidance in one experiment on a path-following task in healthy subjects (Lee & Choi, 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, J., & Choi, S.
Affiliations
Pohang University of Science and Technology (KR)
Venue
2010 IEEE Haptics Symposium
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2010-03
Pages
335-342
ISSN
2324-7347 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171383895
Cited by
118
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
FWCI
20.79
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Haptics Symposium (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National IT Industry Promotion Agency
  • Iran Telecommunication Research Center
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Teleoperation and Haptic Systems
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
haptic guidance, motor skill learning, haptic feedback, repulsive force, visuomotor tracking, retention, haptic interface

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review