Reaction Time to Vibrotactile Messages on Different Types of Soil

Landry D. Chapwouo T. and Bob-Antoine J. Menelas

Department of Computer Science, UQAC, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi (UQAC),

555 boulevard de l'Université, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Canada

Keywords: Haptic Messages, Reaction Time, Vibrotactile Message, Tactons, Foot Perception, Types of Soil.

Abstract: This study investigates the Reaction Time (RT) to vibrotactile messages presented under the foot plantar on

different types of soil. We determine whether reaction time varies while walking on different types of soil

(mobile situation). A total of six young participants (n=6) aged between 21 and 28 took part firstly in this

study where they had to walk on five types of soil (concrete, carpet, foam, gravel, and sand). The

methodology includes 360 repeated measures. The findings have consistently revealed a decrease of

reaction time to vibrotactile messages when walking on the three deformable soils (foam, gravel, and sand).

1 INTRODUCTION

With aging, many features that intervene in the

postural control decline (Hay et al, 1996; Teasdale et

al, 1991), it results that, the incidence of falls is over

30 percent per year for people over 65 years old

(Ganz et al, 2007). In this group of the population,

falls can cause physical injuries including fractures,

reduce functionality, admission to a nursing home

and sometimes death (Ménélas and Otis, 2014).

In this context, to prevent accidental falls we have

designed a system centred on an enactive shoe

(Ménélas and Otis, 2014) . Using an embedded

software, this system estimates in real-time the risk

level of accidental fall (low, medium, high and very

high). To inform the user about the computed risk,

we use a vibrotactile message presented under the

foot plantar. The usefulness of these messages relies

on two requirements. First, these messages have to

be correctly identified. For this a previous work

designed a serious game that allows users to

familiarize themselves with rendered vibrotactile

messages (have). Second, the messages should be

perceived rapidly. The current work address this

point by studying the reaction time (RT) associated

with the interpretation of these stimuli. If the RT

associated to such messages is too long, the user will

in fact not be able to adapt her/his balance.

RT plays a very important role in our lives as its

practical implications may be of great consequences.

Hyman mentioned that RT is a linear function of

stimulus information expressed in bits for the special

case in which response and transmitted information

are each equal to stimulus information (Hyman,

1953). Bricker proposes that the amount of

information an organism must process or transmit is

the crucial determinant of RT (Bricker, 1955). The

RT is a direct consequence of the time taken to

transmit the stimulus measured by the skin

mechanoreceptors along the nerve to the brain and

the response given to the neuromuscular system until

the first action of the muscles involved in postural

control. Psychologists have named three basic kinds

of reaction time experiments: Simple Reaction Time

(SRT), Recognition Reaction Time (RRT) and

Choice Reaction Time (CRT) (Bricker, 1955;

Kosinski, 2008). In a RRT situation, there are some

stimuli that should be responded to, others that

should get no response but there is still only one

correct answer. In CRT experiment, there are

multiple stimuli, and each stimulus requires a

different answer. Based on reaction time’s

definitions provided by (Kosinski, 2008), we will

situate our evaluation within the framework of a

reaction time (RT) because when there are only one

stimulus and one response (feeling or not) within a

walking process . Our methodology is concerned

with reaction time (RT) while walking in various

types of soil.

Prior to our study, there is no significant

traceable thread in the literature about evaluation of

the RT to a vibrotactile message under the foot while

walking on five different types of soil. We want to

T., L. and Menelas, B-A.

Reaction Time to Vibrotactile Messages on Different Types of Soil.

DOI: 10.5220/0006720301550161

In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2018) - Volume 2: HUCAPP, pages

155-161

ISBN: 978-989-758-288-2

155

analyse the time needed to perceive a message sent

to the sole of the foot during walking. We

hypothesized that, RT, is greater when we have

more difficulty to walk on a type of soil. In other

words, RT depends on the types of soil. To this, we

want investigate the impact of RT to vibrotactile

messages presented on the foot when walking on

five types of soil.

The paper is organized as follows: in the second

section, we present related works, then follows the

third and fourth section where we present our

methodology with a full description of the

experiment. The obtained results are presented in the

fifth section and discussion follows in the sixth

section. Finally, we present conclusion and further

research in the seventh section.

2 RELATED WORK

In this section, we will analyze studies related to RT

in order to convey vibrotactile messages under the

foot plantar on different types of soil.

2.1 Reaction Time in Medical

Applications

RT has been extensively investigated for many years

in medical applications for instance to influence the

balance ability (Kosinski, 2008). Also, Reaction

time (RT) is one of the most important parameters

used in psychology to evaluate human tasks

(Kosinski, 2008). Various studies have measured the

fastest response time to the human touch at about

155 milliseconds (Edward S. Robinson, 1934;

Edward S Robinson, 1934; Welford, 1980).

Braverman et al. showed that a RT test is an accurate

predictor of early attention complaints and memory

impairments (Braverman et al, 2010). Moreover,

Gorus et al. showed that participants with cognitive

deterioration demonstrated more slowing RT than

healthy elderly (Gorus et al, 2008). Recently, Jain et

al. studied a comparison of visual RT (VRTs) and

auditory RT (ARTs) on the basis of gender and

physical activity levels of participants (Jain et al,

2015). Participants were asked to concentrate on the

fixation cross and press the “space bar” key, as soon

as possible once target stimulus appears on the

screen. They found a significant difference between

RT of male and female students. In addition,

significant results were found for the ARTs, which

were faster than the VRTs. It is known that the RT

has a direct impact on the risk of falling (Barr et al,

2014). For instance, Lajoie et al. investigated with

two groups (fallers and non-fallers) the possibility to

get a basic variable to predict the risk of falling

(Lajoie et al, 2002). Results showed that RT is an

interesting predictor of falling in the elderly, due to

the sensory and motor components associated. Given

that in everyday life, many falls occur on different

types of soil (Ayena et al, 2015; Otis et al, 2016) or

when walking on a stairway (Jackson and Cohen,

1995), the communication of a vibrotactile signal

could be influenced by the RT of the person as well

as the types of soil on which they are walking. The

literature highlights usability of SRT on medical

applications (balance impairment, auditory, and

visual task) but not the evaluation of a simple RT to

vibrotactile messages on the foot. As far as the RT

from different stimuli is concerned, the literature is

mature but, the above studies did not consider the

specific case that we are investigating here.

2.2 Foot Reaction Time

The need for tools to communicate information

under the foot on different types of soil has resulted

in some interesting initiatives for investigating foot

RT experiment and methodologies. Montés-Micó et

al. investigated the difference between the eye-hand

and eye-foot visual RT among young soccer players

versus non-soccer players (Jackson and Cohen,

1995). Eye-hand and eye-foot visual RTs were

determined by means of a computer-controlled

stimuli device. Results showed firstly that there are

statistically significant differences between eye-hand

and eye-foot RTs between players and non-players

of soccer. Secondly, the results demonstrated a fast

SRT time with soccer players. Recently, Mali et al.

conducted a study to compare Visual Reaction Time

(VRT) and Auditory Reaction Time (ART) of hand

and foot in young adults before and after physical

training (Mali et al, 2013). VRT and ART were

determined with the help of an electronic instrument

“Response Analyzer”. Results show that both VRT

and ART were significantly decreased in all four

limbs after physical training of six months. Pfister et

al. compared Reaction Response Time (RRT)

between hand and foot with a controlled devices for

medical application (Pfister et al, 2014). To evaluate

RT they assumed that, for physiological, anatomical

and ergonomic reasons, the time required to release

a switch with the hand is shorter than the time

required to release a switch with the foot. They

tested both the dominant and non-dominant hands

and feet by performing the “Kick-Test” for each

participant. Results demonstrate a significant faster

RT with the dominant extremity and Simple

HUCAPP 2018 - International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

156

Reaction Time (SRT) test demonstrates significant

faster RT of the hands compared to the feet. All

these studies focused on foot RT, but not on the

case, which interests us here, namely, conveying a

risk level of falling under the foot plantar while

walking on different types of soil.

2.3 Reaction Time in Communication

of Information

It is known that many factors do affect RT

(Kosinski, 2008). RT has been widely used to

convey information, to test how rapidly stimuli

information can be processed and a response to it

can be activated (Luce, 1986). Some studies have

used SRT when work requires performance in a dual

task to assess the risk of falling. This paradigm is

called a probe RT. This is the case of Ming et al.,

they studied physical and cognitive factors

associated with falls by the elderly by evaluating the

probe reaction time (P-RT) (Hu et al, 2009). They

used a wearable trial tool, easy to use and useful for

the evaluation of the risk of falling and they discuss

the relationship when walking between simple RT,

probe RT and participant’s risk of falling. Results

showed that probe RT is useful for the evaluation of

the risk of falling and when the attention demands

while walking increase. Niemi and Näätänen stated

that a typical SRT includes many factors that can be

varied on several parameters: the warning signal

(WS), the foreperiod (FP), the reaction stimulus

(RS), the response (R), and the intertrial interval

(ITI) (Niemi and Näätänen, 1981). For instance,

Drazin evaluated the relationship between RT and

foreperiod (Drazin, 1961). Also, Peon and

Prattichizzo (Peon and Prattichizzo, 2013) studied

RT during conveying information by comparing

different sensory modalities (vibratory, auditory and

visual). Results showed that the haptic canal (strong

modality) can provide faster RT than the auditory

one.

These studies investigated the risk of falling by

evaluating SRT with various tools for

communicating information by the visual, audio and

haptic canals. However, these studies have focused

attention on RT in various conditions, with factors

like hand, finger, and foot. Obviously, they did not

assess the impact of the type of soil, nor the

evaluation of RT while walking (for mobile

application). The haptic canal can be used for RT

experiment, but in this study, we will use an RT

experiment to convey vibrotactile messages under

the foot aimed at alerting the user (De sa and

Carrico, 2011). Our approach differs in the sense

that we are planning to exploit the haptic modality to

convey information under the foot plantar on

different types of soil. This paper is intended to

evaluate the RT when transmitting a vibrotactile

message under the sole of the foot on different types

of soil.

To sum up, they are various applications of RT.

Several researchers have investigated the RT but

about the impact of RT vibrotactile messages on

various type of soil the literature still young. The

vibrotactile message in everyday life could be used

to inform the participant of important information

about a physical situation (in balance or not) or an

external environment (an alert). Moreover, in an

uncontrolled environment, people walk on different

types of soil without paying attention to the impact

of that type of soil on their balance. Their attention

is often occupied by a secondary task after walking.

Then, it is therefore important to investigate the

impact of types of soil affecting RT when conveying

vibrotactile messages while walking.

3 EVALUATION OF THE RT TO

VIBROTACTILE MESSAGE

The aim of this experiment is to evaluate the RT to a

vibrotactile message presented under the foot plantar

while walking on different types of soil.

3.1 Participants

Six young students from the University of Quebec at

Chicoutimi participated in the study. They were

recruited by means of a general invitation to

participate in a study related to the reduction of the

risk of fall. All the youths attended the session

voluntarily. The participants were aged from 21 to

28 (two female and four male). All were novices to

haptic technologies. For health issues, all

participants were instructed to wear socks and we

cleaned all components after each session. Before

the experiment, they were totally naive about all

aspects of the test and were given general

instructions concerning the task. All participants

follow up an interview including a questionnaire and

none of them reported any problem with foot

sensitivity. All volunteers involved in this study

were informed about the experimental protocol and

gave written consent before participating. The

experience and consent form had been previously

approved by the local ethics committee (certificate

number 602.434.01).

Reaction Time to Vibrotactile Messages on Different Types of Soil

157

3.2 Apparatus

Figure 1: Enactive insole: (a) signal amplifier; (b) Mark II

haptuator; (c) insole.

For this experiment, we use an enactive insole

developed in the laboratory (Fig.1.c). It consists of

an insole device equipped with two Mark II

Haptuators. The haptuator is a high-bandwidth,

iron-less, recoil-based electromagnetic vibrotactile

actuator (Ellis et al, 2011). It be driven as a common

loudspeaker. (Fig.1). The smartphone is fixed at the

ankle (Fig. 2). Measurements are performed between

60 to 362 Hz since the optimal response of the

vibration receptors (Pacinian corpusles) is reported

to be at frequencies between 10 – 500 Hz (De sa and

Carrico, 2011).

Figure 2: Positioning of the enactive insole on the foot: (a)

signal amplifier is fixed on the ankle; (b) Enactive insole

is wear into the shoe.

For the experiment, users have to walk on several

types of sole representing the natural flooring

surface materials that we commonly find in the daily

life: concrete, foam, carpet, sand, and gravel (Fig.

3). We have designed a longitudinal and wooden

partitioning device to accommodate selected sole

types (Length =5m, Width =1m Height =0.05m). We

filled each partition with real materials.

A set of four vibrotactile messages is proposed in

the experiment. They are based on the same rhythm

signal and duration of one second. They are

Table 1: List of equation of tactons.

Equation

Number

= a sin(2π121t)

(1)

= a sin(2π60t) sin(2π121t)

(2)

= a sin(2π3t) sin(2π121t)

(3)

= a sin(2π31t) sin(2π53t)

(4)

= 















(5)

= (-t

+ 0:5) sin(2π60t)

(6)

with t = (0: 1=9600: 1) sec.

3.3 Exploited Vibrotactile Messages

Figure 3: Types of soil. Left to right: (a) Concrete, (b)

Carpet, (c) Foam, (d) Gravel, (e) Sand.

designed according to various studies of

psychophysical perception reported in (Visell et al,

2009) and (Menelas and Otis, 2012). The waveform

of each vibrotactile message is described by

equation (Table 1). W

defines a pure sinusoidal

wave (121 Hz). W

is an amplitude modulation of

by 60 Hz of pulsing vibration. W

is a

modulation of W

by a 3 Hz sinusoid of rapid

impulse vibration. W

is a 53 Hz sinusoid modulated

by a 31 Hz of rough vibration sensation. W

is a

Gaussian function where a, is the amplitude of the

signal, e is the Euler number, b is the position of the

center of the peak, and c adjust the bandwidth of the

function. W

is a sinusoid modulated by a quadratic

function providing an increasing or decreasing

tactile sensation.

4 EVALUATION OF THE RT TO

VIBROTACTILE MESSAGES

At the beginning of the experiment participants are

seated, wearing an ear protection and the enactive

HUCAPP 2018 - International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

158

insole on the left foot. They are then invited to select

four among the six vibrotactile messages. Thereafter

the evaluation starts.

Participants have to walk on the 5 types of soil

(Fig.3). Three trials are needed on each soil. For

each trial selected messages are randomly conveyed

under the foot plantar. Doing so, 360 repeated

measures (6 participants x 5 types of soil x 3 trials x

4 messages) are performed.

Whenever the participant perceives a message

he/she is instructed to lift the foot as quickly as

possible. The RT is computed by calculating the

acceleration of the foot movement. The

accelerometer attached to the foot is used to

determine the real time of the stimulus perception

through the speed of movement of the foot. The

acceleration (m/s2) was recovered on the three axis

x, y, z and was compared with an acceleration

threshold value. If the value of the acceleration on

one axis were equal to the threshold, the

identification time (t

) would be saved and we would

compute the RT with the initial time of the stimulus

conveyed (t

): RT

= t

– t

where i represents one

vibrotactile message on a type of soil. If the

vibrotactile message is not perceived after the

maximum time of 5 seconds, then the signal is sent

back.

The overall time is 45 minutes with a break of 5

minutes between the two steps.

A semi-directed interview with Likert-based

question was conducted. In our post-experimental

interview, we asked participants the following

question: What do you think might be the level of

risk for each soil according to your RT to this soil?

This question was intended for user’s experience

about the comprehension, and explanation of RT

data analysis on different types of soil.

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All participants went through the experiment

successfully.

Table 2: Mean RT in milliseconds by participants in each

type of soil.

Participants

Concrete

Carpet

Foam

Gravel

Sand

312.5

330

365

347.5

252.5

320

397.5

527.5

587.5

492.5

472.5

492.5

365

907.5

420

445

530

777.5

710

490

487.5

460

545

665

372.5

405

460

470

450

390

410

445

508.33

611.2

96.56

71.64

71.29

152.79

198.2

5.1 Vibrotactile Messages Preference

Observed results provide a general indication on the

preference of participants on the set of haptic

messages proposed to convey a risk level under the

foot. Among the six vibrotactile messages presented,

participants had to select four and then. The results

(Table. 2) show that the participants had a similar

preference in the choice of vibrotactile messages.

We observed, for the four risk levels of falling low,

medium, high, and very high, participants have

generally associated vibrotactile messages W

, W

, and W

respectively.

5.2 Observed Reaction Times

Individual results showed that the smallest RT was

252.5 msec. observed for the participant B on the

Concrete soil. The highest RT was 907.5 msec.

observed in participant C on the Sand soil. Mean RT

results are found in (Table 2). On average, the fastest

RT can be observed on the Concrete soil (390 msec.)

and the slowest RT is observed on the Sand soil

(611.25 msec.). All these results revealed that the

RT varies according to the types of soil.

We also analyzed conditions for which

participants did not perceived the vibrotactile

messages. In general, five (5/6) participants did not

perceive the vibrotactile messages on three types of

soil (Foam, Gravel, and Sand). The breakdown is as

follows: (3/6) concerning the Foam, (4/6)

concerning the Gravel and (4/6) concerning the

Sand. On the other hand all participants were able to

identify vibrotactile messages on the Concrete and

Carpet types of soil. The results also showed the

mean RT were different according to the type of

soil.

Table 3: Additional statistic test.

Group

Soil pair

Type of test

P-value

Concrete - Sand

Tukey

0,04

Concrete - Sand

Bonferroni and

Holm

0,02

Concrete - Sand

Fisher

0,034

Sand - Concrete

Fisher

0,006

Sand - Carpet

Fisher

0,012

5.3 Statistical Analysis

We performed an ANOVA with repeated measure

on the mean RT (Table 3). Factors are the types of

soil and its associated levels are Concrete, Carpet,

Foam, Gravel, and Sand. Our assumption for the

ANOVA was the homogeneity of variance, we

supposed that variance in different levels of each

Reaction Time to Vibrotactile Messages on Different Types of Soil

159

independent variable was equal. The significance

level (α) is 0.05. The p-value corresponding to the F-

statistic of ANOVA (F(4, 25) = 2.92, p < 0.05) was

lower than 0.05, suggesting that the one or more

mean RTs across types of soil were significantly

different. To identify which of the pairs of soil are

significantly different from the others, the Tukey

HSD test, Bonferroni and Fisher's least significant

difference (LSD) were performed. Results of these

additional tests are reported in Table 3. We can

observe that the pairs 1, 2, 3 are significant from

each other. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis

and confirm the alternative hypothesis. No other

statistically significant difference was found, but

from data collected in our post-experimental

interview, a simple contrasts indicated that

vibrotactile RTs were much longer for soft or

irregular surfaces according to the rank ordering of

the surfaces causing concerns in Table 4.

Table 4: Types of soil causing perception difficulties.

Level of difficulty

Type of soil

Low

Concrete

Carpet

Medium

Concrete

Sand

High

Foam

Sand

Very high

Gravel

Sand

Additional question on the survey about the

device revealed that 66.66% of the population feel

uncomfortable with the device while walking.

5.4 Discussion and Limitations

Overall results suggest a significant effect of type of

soil on RT to vibrotactile message. The factors that

most influence the RT to a vibrotactile message is

when participants walk on the Sand and on the

Gravel.

Vibrotactile RTs were longer on deformable

surfaces. A possible explanation for that is that when

walking the pressure exerted on the surface induces

deformations that introduce perceptual conflicts in

the understanding of proposed haptic messages. As

result, vibrotactile messages are thus better

perceived on non-deformable soils (Concrete,

Carpet) when compared to deformable ones (Foam,

Gravel, and Sand). Moreover, based on, our post-

experimental interview, we observed that most

participants (83.33%) had experienced some

difficulties to walk on these soils. They categorized

them as types of soil with very high-risk difficulty

(Table 4).

The main limitation of this study concerns the

participants; it focuses on two aspects that will be

investigated in future work. The first is related to the

limited number of participants in the study.

Although we had significant results, the sample

being very small, it will be important to repeat the

experiment with more subjects. The second

limitation concerns the representativeness of the

sampling. The purpose of this study was to validate

the possibility of using vibrotactile feedbacks to

transmit messages under the foot plantar during

walking. This step now taken, we will need to

validate this possibility with the population targeted

by the designed instrumented footwear (Menelas and

Otis, 2012). More particularly, we will have to

experiment with the possibility of use and perception

of these messages with elderly people.

6 CONCLUSION

This paper aimed at evaluating the RT to vibrotactile

messages when walking on five types of soil. We

analysed the time needed to react to a vibrotactile

message sent to the foot plantar, using an enactive

sole, while walking. Two main results have been

noted. First, we observed that the RT was

significantly longer on deformable surfaces

compared to non-deformable surfaces. Second,

results and answers to the post-experiment interview

showed that the information (the risk of falling)

conveyed through vibrotactile messages is better

perceived on non-deformable surfaces. It thus

appears that types of soil can influence the

perception when walking. But, to increase the

significance of our results, an extension of this work

will be to use an apparatus adapted to improve the

user experience when walking, increases the number

of participants (fallers and non-fallers / youth and

elderlies), and finally study the positioning of the

Haptuator on the body.

REFERENCES

Ayena, J. C., Chapwouo T, L. D., Otis, M. J. D. and

Menelas, B. A. J. (2015) An efficient home-based risk

of falling assessment test based on Smartphone and

instrumented insole, Medical Measurements and

Applications (MeMeA), 2015 IEEE International

Symposium on. 7-9 May 2015.

HUCAPP 2018 - International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

160

Barr, C., McLoughlin, J., Lord, S. R., Crotty, M. and

Sturnieks, D. L. (2014) Walking for six minutes

increases both simple reaction time and stepping

reaction time in moderately disabled people with

Multiple Sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis and Related

Disorders, 3(4), 457-462.

Braverman, E. R., Chen, A. L.-C., Chen, T. J.,

Schoolfield, J. D., Notaro, A., Braverman, D., Kerner,

M., Blum, S. H., Arcuri, V. and Varshavskiy, M.

(2010) Test of variables of attention (TOVA) as a

predictor of early attention complaints, an antecedent

to dementia. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment,

6, 681.

Bricker, P. D. (1955) Information measurement and

reaction time: A review. Information theory in

psychology: problems and methods, 350-359.

De sa, M. and Carrico, L. (2011) Designing and

Evaluating Mobile Interaction: Challenges and Trends.

Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact., 4(3), 175-243.

Drazin, D. (1961) Effects of foreperiod, foreperiod

variability, and probability of stimulus occurrence on

simple reaction time. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 62(1), 43.

Ellis, R. E., Hayward, V. and Yao, H.-Y. (2011) Tactile

amplification instrument and method of use. Google

Patents.

Gorus, E., De Raedt, R., Lambert, M., Lemper, J.-C. and

Mets, T. (2008) Reaction times and performance

variability in normal aging, mild cognitive

impairment, and Alzheimer's disease. Journal of

Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 21(3), 204-218.

Hay, L., Bard, C., Fleury, M. and Teasdale, N. (1996)

Availability of visual and proprioceptive afferent

messages and postural control in elderly adults.

Experimental Brain Research, 108(1), 129-139.

Hu, M., Maruyama, H. and Akiyama, S. (2009) An

approach to assessment of the fall risk for the elderly

by probe reaction time during walking. Journal of

Physical Therapy Science, 21(4), 311-316.

Hyman, R. (1953) Stimulus information as a determinant

of reaction time. Journal of experimental psychology,

45(3), 188.

Jackson, P. L. and Cohen, H. H. (1995) An in-depth

investigation of 40 stairway accidents and the stair

safety literature. Journal of Safety Research, 26(3),

151-159.

Jain, A., Bansal, R., Kumar, A. and Singh, K. D. (2015) A

comparative study of visual and auditory reaction

times on the basis of gender and physical activity

levels of medical first year students. International

Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 5(2),

124-127.

Kosinski, R. J. (2008) A literature review on reaction time.

Clemson University, 10.

Lajoie, Y., Girard, A. and Guay, M. (2002) Comparison

of the reaction time, the Berg Scale and the ABC in

non-fallers and fallers. Archives of gerontology and

geriatrics, 35(3), 215-225.

Luce, R. D. (1986) Response times: Their role in inferring

elementary mental organizationOxford University

Press on Demand.

Mali, B., Pradhan, M. and Bhatkar, R. (2013) Comparison

of Visual and Auditory Reaction Time of Hand and

Foot in Young Adults Before and After Physical

Training.

Menelas, B.-A. and Otis, M.-D. (2012) Design of a

serious game for learning vibrotactile messages,

Haptic Audio Visual Environments and Games

(HAVE), 2012 IEEE International Workshop on. 2012.

IEEE.

Ménélas, B.-A. J. and Otis, M. J.-D. (2014) Method of

advising a user via a tactile message to the foot,

method of determining a foot gesture type and devices

therefore Available

Niemi, P. and Näätänen, R. (1981) Foreperiod and simple

reaction time. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 133.

Otis, M. J.-D., Ayena, J. C., Tremblay, L. E., Fortin, P. E.

and Ménélas, B.-A. J. (2016) Use of an Enactive

Insole for Reducing the Risk of Falling on Different

Types of Soil Using Vibrotactile Cueing for the

Elderly. PloS one, 11(9), e0162107.

Peon, A. R. and Prattichizzo, D. (2013) Reaction times to

constraint violation in haptics: comparing vibration,

visual and audio stimuli, World Haptics Conference

(WHC), 2013. IEEE.

Pfister, M., Lue, J.-C. L., Stefanini, F. R., Falabella, P.,

Dustin, L., Koss, M. J. and Humayun, M. S. (2014)

Comparison of reaction response time between hand

and foot controlled devices in simulated microsurgical

testing. BioMed research international, 2014.

Robinson, E. S. (1934) Work of the Integrated Organism,

A handbook of general experimental psychology.

International university series in psychology.

Worcester, MA, US: Clark University Press, 571-650.

Robinson, E. S. (1934) Work of the Integrated Organism.

Teasdale, N., Stelmach, G. E. and Breunig, A. (1991)

Postural sway characteristics of the elderly under

normal and altered visual and support surface

conditions. J Gerontol, 46(6), B238-44.

Visell, Y., Law, A. and Cooperstock, J. R. (2009) Touch

is everywhere: Floor surfaces as ambient haptic

interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 2(3), 148-

159.

Welford, A. T. (1980) Reaction times. Academic Press.

Reaction Time to Vibrotactile Messages on Different Types of Soil

161