Pseudo Haptic in Augmented Reality Environment

Based on Touch Screen

Chien-Hsu, Chen / Ya-Hsin, Horng / Fong-Gong, Wu

National Cheng-kung University, Industrial Design department

chenhsu@mail.ncku.edu.tw

In Augment Reality (AR) environment, human perception

could help virtual object mixing

with real environment to

intensify its reality.

By controlling visual effects

and interactive feedback on

touch-screen.

We could take advantage of

cross-sensory interaction to

create a tactile illusion called

pseudo-haptic.

Augmented Object

Real World

Mix World

Tablet with camera

Real Object

AUGMENT REALITY IN TOUCH-SCREEN ENVIRONMENT

Spatial

Presence

Tactile

Engagement

Sensory

Presence Visual-to-

Tactile

Illusion

Presence Cross-Modal Illusion

(Synesthesia)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESENCE

AND CROSS-MODAL ILLUSIONS

PSEUDO-HAPTIC AR SYSTEM ON TOUCH SCREEN

Message

Visual

Auditory

Haptic

Stimuli

Image

Physical property

Sound noise

Variable

Visual effect

Sound effect

Control feedback

Sensation Perception

COGNITIVE MODULE OF PSEUDO-HAPTIC AR

Experiment Control Group (Visual Only )

Experimental Group (Pseudo Haptic)

Figure 1. Three rounds in control

group. (A) elasticity (B) density (C)

friction.

CONTROL GROUP

Figure 2. Three rounds in passive visual

clue only. (A) elasticity (B) density (C)

friction.

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Result liner regressions

accuracy

volume

LINER REGRESSION

1.187

1.028

1.187

1.133 1.15

1.274

1.084

1.132

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

Elasticity Density Friction All

Slp

oe v

alu

e o

f th

e r

egre

ssio

n

Control Group Experimental Group

0.970 0.698 0.933 0.859

0.974

0.761

0.938

0.874

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

Elasticity Density Friction All

R s

quare

Figure 3 (UP) Slope values

calculated through a linear

regression for each condition.

(Down) R square for each condition.

The fourth condition is the group

average.

PHYSICAL PROPERTY

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Devia

tion

Big Middle Small

elastic Density Friction

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Devia

tion

Big Middle Small

Figure 4 (Up) Mean deviation

of allocated score in control

group. (Down) Mean

deviation of allocated score

in experimental group.

VOLUME

0.925 1.128 0.881

0.684

0.896 0.830

0.702

1.191

0.967

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Elasticity Denisty Friction

Devia

tion

Big Middle Small

0.844 1.029 0.758

0.681

1.078

0.793

0.543

1.335

0.839

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Elasticity Denisty Friction

Devia

tion

Figure 5 Mean deviation which

sorting by the sample volume in

(Up) Control group. (Down)

Experimental group.

Conclusion

Experiment

Discussion

EXPERIMENT

Value of R2 and the slope of the regression in

experimental group represent better than control

group.

Participant’s allocated score is in direct ratio to the

actual parameter, but the accuracy of reported value is

not quite high.

Mean of deviation of control group is 0.914, the

experiment group has the lower mean as 0.878. (T-test,

α=95%, p=0.605)

DISCUSSION

FUTURE WORK

Correlation coefficients of accuracy and time in a

single task.

Participant’s workload.

The subjective scale of preferences.

POSSIBILITY

Increasing physical fidelity on AR platform without

extra space.

Helpful on video game or virtual interface, enhance

the effect of motion sensing and the depths of

presence

END

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION