Dear Mounia,
Thank you so much for sharing these wonderful papers with us. If I may ask, since it has been some time since the dating on these, can you hint at where the research might be at this point? I would like to ask you two questions if I could, in case much has already been done and your progress is already as far as it seems it may now be.
You mention: “In other words, the zoom experience is built by the appropriation of a technical substitution which makes it possible to modify the properties of the space-time flow; these properties which bind the subject to his (real or virtual) world are relational” (Ziat, Gapenn, Lenay, & Stewart, 2007, p. 305). Is your team exploring the possibility that observation like this is a purely temporal engagement between viewer and percept? It is exciting for me to see your experiment, because it gives us such a substantial means to explore the coupling that seems to occur between disparate timescales (what your team’s Enactive papers refer to as the corporeal and the numerical). The newly shared timescale seems to exhibit familiar equations (e.g. when the numerical scale increases, the positive acceleration in that timescale also grows between concept center and perimeter; complementarily, the corporeal timescale must exhibit negative acceleration to accommodate the ongoing temporal synchrony. We sense that in proprioception as a differential between timescales, even if the result is a single one, and “pull back” our reach before an anticipated outer boundary). Conception, perception, tropism and motility seem to evince traversals representative of the navigation of time and this seems very exciting to me.
My other question is, are you exploring the use of a “frequency penumbra” for the haptic Braille matrix? This is also exciting if so, because we could create (in tactile/vibrational feedback) a simultaneity of spatial bistate pins which exhibit analogue magnitudes of frequency, and within which the simultaneous non-differentiation between the whole allows conceptualizing spatial approximations. It seems that all our senses do this; spatial distality is gauged by reciprocal feedback along a radius between viewer and percept, where higher frequencies use “quanta” (highest near the centroid) to help us judge proximacy. And the goal paradox is there too; the goal of observance is to reduce differential distinction to a unitary timescale, even though that will prevent further temporal discrimination; when this proximal angle is beneath appreciative distinction, we use touch to discriminate with pressure and vibration, and that goal similarly is to achieve haptic coincidence which is also paradoxical. But the percept becomes a tool and extension of self, within indistinguishable proprioception (based also on Curtz, Murray, & Paithorp, 2004; Walsh, Moseley, Taylor, & Gandevia, 2011).
I am in much admiration of your work already Mounia, and hope to see more.
Additional references:
Curtz, T., Murray, N., Pailthorp, C. (2004). Perception lab #4: Receptor density mapping. Retrieved January 8, 2013, from http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/perception/Lab1027.pdf
Walsh, L. D., Moseley, G. L., Taylor, J. L., & Gandevia, S. C. (2011). Proprioceptive signals contribute to the sense of body ownership. The Journal of Physiology, 589(12), 3009–3021. Retrieved January 3, 2013, from http://jp.physoc.org/content/589/12/3009.full.pdf+html
Ziat, M., Gapenn, O., Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. (2005). Perception in numerical and corporeal spaces in a 2D haptic virtual world. Proceedings of ENACTIVE/05: 2nd International Conference on Enactive Interfaces. Genoa, Italy.
Ziat, M., Gapenn, O., Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. (2007). Zooming experience in the haptic modality. Proceedings of ENACTIVE/07: 4th International Conference on Enactive Interfaces. Grenoble, France.
Conference Paper Zooming experience in the haptic modality
- Badges
- Science topic