Touching the invisible: localising ultrasonic haptic cues (World Haptics 2015 talk)

Touching the Invisible:

Localizing Ultrasonic Haptic Cues

Dong-Bach Vo and Stephen Brewster

University of Glasgow, United Kingdom

Mid-air interaction

2

© Leap motion

© c|net - VW Golf R Touch

Ultrasonic haptic feedback

3

Ultrahaptics, Carter et al. [UIST 2013]

Ultrasonic haptic feedback

4

Ultrahaptics, Carter et al. [UIST 2013]

Wilson et al. [CHI 2014]

Ultrasonic haptic feedback

5Long et al. [Trans. on Graphics, 2014]

Ultrahaptics, Carter et al. [UIST 2013]

Wilson et al. [CHI 2014]

Ultrasonic haptic widgets

6

How well can users locate ultrasonic haptic cues in mid-air?

7

Experiment design

• Task • « Match the 2D position

of the marker to the 2D position of the target point »

• 18 participants * 10 blocks * 10 trials * 3 conditions = 5400

8

20 cm

Experiment design

• 1 independent variable • visual stimulus

• haptic stimulus

• visual + haptic stimulus

• Dependent variables • Time

• Euclidian error distance

9

20 cm

0

1000

20002220

3000

Visual Haptic Both

Tim

e in

ms

Results ‒ time

10

Mean execution time (in ms)

• Visual 0.5s faster than haptic

• V&H 0.5s faster than haptic

0

1000

20002220

3000

Visual Haptic Both

Tim

e in

ms

Results ‒ time

11

Mean execution time (in ms)

• Visual 0.5s faster than haptic

• V&H 0.5s faster than haptic

0

1000

20002220

3000

Visual Haptic Both

Tim

e in

ms

Results ‒ time

12

Mean execution time (in ms)

• Visual 0.5s faster than haptic

• V&H 0.5s faster than haptic

Results ‒ error distance

13

• Haptic almost 25% more accurate than visual

• V&H almost 50% more accurate than visual

0

5

10

15

20

Visual Haptic Both

Dis

tanc

e in

mm

Mean euclidian distance error (in mm)

Results ‒ error distance

14

• Haptic almost 25% more accurate than visual

• V&H almost 50% more accurate than visual

0

5

10

15

20

Visual Haptic Both

Dis

tanc

e in

mm

Mean euclidian distance error (in mm)

Results ‒ error distance

15

• Haptic almost 25% more accurate than visual

• V&H almost 50% more accurate than visual

0

5

10

15

20

Visual Haptic Both

Dis

tanc

e in

mm

Mean euclidian distance error (in mm)

Results ‒ spatial resolution

16

24.3 m

m

24.3 mm

Results ‒ spatial resolution

17

24.3 m

m

24.3 mm 11.6 mm

23.5 m

m

Visual

9.8 mm

14.3 m

m

Haptic

Results ‒ spatial resolution

18

11.6 mm

23.5 m

m

Visual

24.3 m

m

24.3 mm

Results ‒ spatial resolution

19

7.9 mm

10.3 m

m

V&H

24.3 m

m

24.3 mm 11.6 mm

23.5 m

m

Visual

9.8 mm

14.3 m

m

Haptic

Passive stimulation

Wilson et al. [2014]

Haptic

20 m

m

15 mm

Results ‒ spatial resolution

20

7.9 mm

10.3 m

m

V&H

9.8 mm

14.3 m

m

Haptic

11.6 mm

23.5 m

m

Visual

Conclusion

• Visual cues make localisation faster

• Haptic cues improve accuracy

• With V&H cues object size should be more than 1cm²

• With haptic cues alone, object size should be more than 2cm²

21

Future work

22

Touching the Invisible:

Localizing Ultrasonic Haptic Cues

dong-bach.vo@glasgow.ac.uk