Loading…

Electrotactile Communication via Matrix Electrode Placed on the Torso Using Fast Calibration, and Static vs. Dynamic Encoding

Electrotactile stimulation is a technology that reproducibly elicits tactile sensations and can be used as an alternative channel to communicate information to the user. The presented work is a part of an effort to develop this technology into an unobtrusive communication tool for first responders....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Switzerland), 2022-10, Vol.22 (19), p.7658
Main Authors: Malešević, Jovana, Kostić, Miloš, Jure, Fabricio A., Spaich, Erika G., Došen, Strahinja, Ilić, Vojin, Bijelić, Goran, Štrbac, Matija
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Electrotactile stimulation is a technology that reproducibly elicits tactile sensations and can be used as an alternative channel to communicate information to the user. The presented work is a part of an effort to develop this technology into an unobtrusive communication tool for first responders. In this study, the aim was to compare the success rate (SR) between discriminating stimulation at six spatial locations (static encoding) and recognizing six spatio-temporal patterns where pads are activated sequentially in a predetermined order (dynamic encoding). Additionally, a procedure for a fast amplitude calibration, that includes a semi-automated initialization and an optional manual adjustment, was employed and evaluated. Twenty subjects, including twelve first responders, participated in the study. The electrode comprising the 3 × 2 matrix of pads was placed on the lateral torso. The results showed that high SRs could be achieved for both types of message encoding after a short learning phase; however, the dynamic approach led to a statistically significant improvement in messages recognition (SR of 93.3%), compared to static stimulation (SR of 83.3%). The proposed calibration procedure was also effective since in 83.8% of the cases the subjects did not need to adjust the stimulation amplitude manually.
ISSN:1424-8220
1424-8220
DOI:10.3390/s22197658