17.01.2013 Views

Chapter 2. Prehension

Chapter 2. Prehension

Chapter 2. Prehension

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Chapter</strong> 9 - Reevaluation and Future Directions 333<br />

Finally, in terms of gathering sensory information, there are<br />

analytic measures for the design of sensors. The sensivity required in<br />

a task deals with sensor spatial resolution, sensor spacing, and the<br />

sensitivity of the sensors. The required speed of response is a<br />

bandwidth issue. An important question relative to tasks is what<br />

information must be transduced (e.g., finger normal forces, tangential<br />

forces, contact, joint torques, vibrations changes in forces). (See<br />

Cutkosky & Howe, 1990; Fearing & Hollerbach 1985).<br />

From the experimental literature, tasks are described at the level of<br />

‘move as quickly and as accurately as possible’ or ‘pick up the<br />

dowel. ’ At this level, an environmentally-defined goal is made<br />

explicit, Goals can be subdivided into sub-tasks occurring in serial<br />

order, and a task plan constructed that consists of desired subgoals<br />

without regard to the details of the actions necessary to accomplish<br />

them. Task plans have been constructed for robots (Lozano-Perkz &<br />

Winston, 1977) and as models for the CNS in terms of coordinated<br />

control programs (Arbib, 1985). Goals can be represented in terms of<br />

sensory consequences (Schmidt, 1975; Cole & Abbs 1987). Mis-<br />

matches between the actual outcome and the anticipated sensory<br />

consequences cause reprogramming, but the error processing can also<br />

be incorporated into the plan, as modelled with TOTES (Miller,<br />

Galanter & Pribram, 1960).<br />

In terms of human understanding of tasks, it is hard to relate these<br />

high level descriptions to the lower level analytic measures (Cutkosky,<br />

1989). Yet, at the level of human performance, it is observable that<br />

postures are chosen with implicit knowledge of issues such as<br />

stability, resistance to slipping, force closure, connectivity, etc.<br />

9.1.3 Hands<br />

The human hand has both precision and power capabilities (Napier<br />

1956). It also has a variety of ways to grasp objects. Prehensile<br />

postures present different degrees of available force, of available<br />

motion, and of available sensory information. From the variety of<br />

possible postures, the CNS matches the precision and power<br />

requirements of the task with the precision and power capabilities of<br />

the human (Napier, 1956). But there are constraints on the ways that<br />

the hand can be postured, as well as on the potential success of a<br />

chosen posture. Postures are created by the muscles of the hand<br />

directing the bones into some configuration, based on the motion<br />

capabilities of the various joints.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!