Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine, whether and under which conditions humans are able to predict the putting distance of a robotic device. Based on the “flash-lag effect” (FLE) it was expected that the prediction errors increase with increasing putting velocity. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the predictions are more accurate and more confident if human observers operate under full vision (F-RCHB) compared to either temporal occlusion (I-RCHB) or spatial occlusion (invisible ball, F-RHC, or club, F-B). In two experiments, 48 video sequences of putt movements performed by a BioRob robot arm were presented to thirty-nine students (age: 24.49±3.20 years). In the experiments, video sequences included six putting distances (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 m; experiment 1) under full versus incomplete vision (F-RCHB versus I-RCHB) and three putting distances (2. 0, 3.0, and 4.0 m; experiment 2) under the four visual conditions (F-RCHB, I-RCHB, F-RCH, and F-B). After the presentation of each video sequence, the participants estimated the putting distance on a scale from 0 to 6 m and provided their confidence of prediction on a 5-point scale. Both experiments show comparable results for the respective dependent variables (error and confidence measures). The participants consistently overestimated the putting distance under the full vision conditions; however, the experiments did not show a pattern that was consistent with the FLE. Under the temporal occlusion condition, a prediction was not possible; rather a random estimation pattern was found around the centre of the prediction scale (3 m). Spatial occlusion did not affect errors and confidence of prediction. The experiments indicate that temporal constraints seem to be more critical than spatial constraints. The FLE may not apply to distance prediction compared to location estimation.
Funder
Forum for Interdisciplinary Research at Technische Universität Darmstadt
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference41 articles.
1. Machine Learning Approaches For Motor Learning: A Short Review;B Caramiaux;Frontiers in Computer Science,2020
2. Bennetot A, Charisi V, Díaz-Rodríguez N. Should artificial agents ask for help in human-robot collaborative problem-solving?. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00882. 2020.
3. A dynamical system approach for detection and reaction to human guidance in physical human–robot interaction;M Khoramshahi;Autonomous Robots,2020
4. Motor Variability During Robotic Assistance Enhances Motor Learning of Dynamic Tasks;O Oezen;neuroscience,2020
5. Augmented information in motor skill acquisition;K Blischke;Psychology for physical educators Champaign: Human Kinetics,1999