Discrimination of visual and haptic rendering delays in networked environments

Article

Abstract

Many networked human-machine interface systems have a distributed structure for certain purposes such as more computational power, tele-presence, collaboration, and portability. However, network delays are inevitable in the distributed structure, and often make sensory information delivered behind time to the user. In the literature, the effect of network delays on the quality of information presentation has been considered with respect to task performances in most cases. In this paper, we pay attention to a more stringent criterion, namely whether perceptual artifacts caused by network delays are perceptible by the user. We examined minimum perceptible visual and/or haptic rendering delays by measuring their discrimination thresholds between normal and delayed virtual environments with and without a task, and report the results in this paper. We also provide a simple guideline for determining whether active delay compensation algorithms are required in a networked human-machine interface system by comparing representative network delays to the measured discrimination thresholds.

Keywords

Discriminability network delay networked environment perception 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    H. Levitt, “Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 467–477, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. A. Lawrence, “Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 624–637, 1993.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Kim, H. Kim, B. K. Tay, M. Muniyandi, M. A. Srinivasan, J. Jordan, J. Mortensen, M. Oliveira, and M. Slater, “Transatlantic touch: A study of haptic collaboration over long distance,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 328–337, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. Gunn, M. Hutchins, and M. Adcock, “Combating latency in haptic collaborative virtual environments,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 313–328, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    E. Dorjgotov, S. Choi, S. R. Dunlop, and G. R. Bertoline, “Portable haptic display for large immersive virtual environments,” Proc. of the 14th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, pp. 321–327, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Delaney, T. Ward, and S. McLoone, “On consistency and network latency in distributed interactive applications: A survey-part I,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 218–234, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Delaney, T. Ward, and S. McLoone, “On consistency and network latency in distributed interactive applications: A survey-part II,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 465–482, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    I. S. MacKenzie and C. Ware, “Lag as a determinant of human performance in interactive systems,” Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 488–493, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Jay and R. Hubbold, “Delayed visual and haptic feedback in a reciprocal tapping task,” Proc. of the World Haptics Conference, pp. 655–656, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    I. M. Vogels, “Detection of temporal delays in visual-haptic interfaces,” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 118–134, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Hirche and M. Buss, “Human perceived transparency with time delay,” Advances in Telerobotics-STAR, Springer Tracts on Advanced Robotics, vol. 31, pp. 191–209, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. C. Çavusoglu, D. Feygin, and F. Tendick, “A critical study of the mechanical and electrical properties of the PHANToMTM haptic interface and improvements for high performance control,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 555–568, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Choi and H. Z. Tan, “Perceived instability of virtual haptic texture. I. Experimental studies,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environment, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 395–415, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Ruspini, K. Kolarov, and O. Khatib, “The haptic display of complex graphical environments,” Proc. of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 345–352, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    B. J. Winer, D. R. Brown, and K. M. Michels, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. R. Leek, “Adaptive procedure in psychophysical research,” Perception & Psychophysics, vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 1279–1292, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institute of Control, Robotics and Systems Engineers and The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Haptics and Virtual Reality Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and EngineeringPOSTECHPohang, KyungbukKorea

Personalised recommendations