Touching the invisible: localising ultrasonic haptic cues (World Haptics 2015 talk)
•
1 j'aime•733 vues
Slides from the talk I gave at World Haptics 2015 in Chicago to present our latest results regarding the localisation of ultrasonic haptics in the air.
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Touching the invisible: localising ultrasonic haptic cues (World Haptics 2015 talk)
Similaire à Touching the invisible: localising ultrasonic haptic cues (World Haptics 2015 talk) (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Touching the invisible: localising ultrasonic haptic cues (World Haptics 2015 talk)
- 1. Touching the Invisible: Localizing Ultrasonic Haptic Cues Dong-Bach Vo and Stephen Brewster University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
- 2. Mid-air interaction 2 © Leap motion © c¦net - VW Golf R Touch
- 3. Ultrasonic haptic feedback 3 Ultrahaptics, Carter et al. [UIST 2013]
- 4. Ultrasonic haptic feedback 4 Ultrahaptics, Carter et al. [UIST 2013] Wilson et al. [CHI 2014]
- 5. Ultrasonic haptic feedback 5Long et al. [Trans. on Graphics, 2014] Ultrahaptics, Carter et al. [UIST 2013] Wilson et al. [CHI 2014]
- 7. How well can users locate ultrasonic haptic cues in mid-air? 7
- 8. 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
- 9. Experiment design • 1 independent variable • visual stimulus • haptic stimulus • visual + haptic stimulus • Dependent variables • Time • Euclidian error distance 9 20 cm
- 10. 0 1000 2000 2220 3000 Visual Haptic Both Timeinms Results ‒ time 10 Mean execution time (in ms) • Visual 0.5s faster than haptic • V&H 0.5s faster than haptic
- 11. 0 1000 2000 2220 3000 Visual Haptic Both Timeinms Results ‒ time 11 Mean execution time (in ms) • Visual 0.5s faster than haptic • V&H 0.5s faster than haptic
- 12. 0 1000 2000 2220 3000 Visual Haptic Both Timeinms Results ‒ time 12 Mean execution time (in ms) • Visual 0.5s faster than haptic • V&H 0.5s faster than haptic
- 13. 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 Distanceinmm Mean euclidian distance error (in mm)
- 14. 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 Distanceinmm Mean euclidian distance error (in mm)
- 15. 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 Distanceinmm Mean euclidian distance error (in mm)
- 16. Results ‒ spatial resolution 16 24.3mm 24.3 mm
- 17. Results ‒ spatial resolution 17 24.3mm 24.3 mm 11.6 mm 23.5mm Visual
- 18. 9.8 mm 14.3mm Haptic Results ‒ spatial resolution 18 11.6 mm 23.5mm Visual 24.3mm 24.3 mm
- 19. Results ‒ spatial resolution 19 7.9 mm 10.3mm V&H 24.3mm 24.3 mm 11.6 mm 23.5mm Visual 9.8 mm 14.3mm Haptic
- 20. Passive stimulation Wilson et al. [2014] Haptic 20mm 15 mm Results ‒ spatial resolution 20 7.9 mm 10.3mm V&H 9.8 mm 14.3mm Haptic 11.6 mm 23.5mm Visual
- 21. 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
- 22. Future work 22
- 23. Touching the Invisible: Localizing Ultrasonic Haptic Cues dong-bach.vo@glasgow.ac.uk