Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
