↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Integration Strategies for Visuo-Haptic Object Recognition

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Computation, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating Integration Strategies for Visuo-Haptic Object Recognition
Published in
Cognitive Computation, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12559-017-9536-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sibel Toprak, Nicolás Navarro-Guerrero, Stefan Wermter

Abstract

In computational systems for visuo-haptic object recognition, vision and haptics are often modeled as separate processes. But this is far from what really happens in the human brain, where cross- as well as multimodal interactions take place between the two sensory modalities. Generally, three main principles can be identified as underlying the processing of the visual and haptic object-related stimuli in the brain: (1) hierarchical processing, (2) the divergence of the processing onto substreams for object shape and material perception, and (3) the experience-driven self-organization of the integratory neural circuits. The question arises whether an object recognition system can benefit in terms of performance from adopting these brain-inspired processing principles for the integration of the visual and haptic inputs. To address this, we compare the integration strategy that incorporates all three principles to the two commonly used integration strategies in the literature. We collected data with a NAO robot enhanced with inexpensive contact microphones as tactile sensors. The results of our experiments involving every-day objects indicate that (1) the contact microphones are a good alternative to capturing tactile information and that (2) organizing the processing of the visual and haptic inputs hierarchically and in two pre-processing streams is helpful performance-wise. Nevertheless, further research is needed to effectively quantify the role of each identified principle by itself as well as in combination with others.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 7 25%
Computer Science 6 21%
Psychology 2 7%
Linguistics 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,581,651
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Computation
#221
of 413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,004
of 441,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Computation
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 413 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.