Virtual Reality

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 205–218 | Cite as

Haptic discrimination of virtual surface slope

Original Article
  • 255 Downloads

Abstract

We report the difference thresholds of the slope of a virtual surface rendered via a force–feedback haptic interface with the body frontal plane as a reference. The factors varied in experiments were the stiffness of a virtual plane, the lateral velocity with which the haptic probe scanned the plane, the length of a scanning interval, the movement direction of the probe to the body frontal plane (toward or away from the body), and lateral scanning direction (left-to-right or right-to-left). Measured slope thresholds ranged from 8.33° to 12.74° and were generally higher than or similar to previously published thresholds for haptic orientation or angle discrimination. The results suggested that haptic slope discriminability was independent of surface stiffness and lateral scanning velocity. Slope discrimination was largely affected by the lateral scan distance, indicating that the terminal difference of probe normal position can be an important sensory cue. In terms of scan direction, inward or rightward scans resulted in better slope discrimination than outward or leftward scans, respectively. These thresholds and findings have implications for haptics applications that involve geometric model modification or simplification of virtual objects while preserving their perceptual properties.

Keywords

Discrimination Surface slope Haptic rendering Virtual surface Mesh simplification Mesh manipulation 

References

  1. Barbagli F, Salisbury K, Ho C, Spence C, Tan HZ (2006) Haptic discrimination of force direction and the influence of visual information. ACM Trans Appl Percept 3(2):125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. van Beers RJ, Sittig AC, van der Gon JJD (1998) The precision of proprioceptive position sense. Exp Brain Res 122(4):367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brisben AJ, Hsiao SS, Johnson KO (1999) Detection of vibration transmitted through an object grasped in the hand. J Neurophysiol 81(4):1548–1558Google Scholar
  4. Cheon J, Hwang I, Han K, Choi S (2008) Haptizing a surface height change with varying stiffness based on force constancy: extended algorithm. In: Proceedings of the symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environments and teleoperator systems, IEEE computer society, pp 193–200Google Scholar
  5. Chib VS, Patton JL, Lynch KM, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2006) Haptic identification of surfaces as fields of force. J Neurophysiol 95(2):1068–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi S, Tan HZ (2004) Perceived instability of virtual haptic texture. I. Experimental studies. Presence 13(4):395–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi S, Walker L, Tan HZ, Crittenden S, Reifenberger R (2005) Force constancy and its effect on haptic perception of virtual surfaces. ACM Trans Appl Percept 2(2):89–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drewing K, Ernst MO (2006) Integration of force and position cues for shape perception through active touch. Brain Res 1078(1):92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fasse ED, Hogan N, Kay BA, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2000) Haptic interaction with virtual objects: spatial perception and motor control. Biol Cybern 82(1):69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garland M (1999) Multiresolution modeling: survey and future opportunities. In: Proceedings of Eurographics on state of the art report, pp 111–131Google Scholar
  11. Giachritsis CD, Wing AM, Lovell PG (2009) The role of spatial integration in the perception of surface orientation with active touch. Atten Percept Psychophys 71(7):1628–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haggard P, Newman C, Blundell J, Andrew H (2000) The perceived position of the hand in space. Percept Psychophys 68(2):363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henriques DYP, Soechting JF (2003) Bias and sensitivity in the haptic perception of geometry. Exp Brain Res 150(1):95–108Google Scholar
  14. Hinterseer P, Steinbach E (2006) A psychophysically motivated compression approach for 3D haptic data. In: Proceedings of the symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, IEEE, pp 35–41Google Scholar
  15. van der Horst BJ, Kappers AML (2007) Curvature discrimination in various finger conditions. Exp Brain Res 177(3):304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kappers AML, Koenderink JJ (1999) Haptic perception of spatial relations. Perception 28(6):781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knill DC (1998) Discrimination of planar surface slant from texture: human and ideal observers compared. Vision Res 38(11):1683–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knox JJ, Hodges PW (2005) Changes in head and neck position affect elbow joint position sense. Exp Brain Res 165(1):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kontsevich LL, Tyler CW (1999) Bayesian adaptive estimation of psychometric slope and threshold. Vision Res 39:2729–2737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuschel M, Kremer P, Hirche S, Buss M (2006) Lossy data reduction methods for haptic telepresence systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 2933–2938Google Scholar
  21. Leek MR, Hanna TE, Marshall L (1992) Estimation of psychometric functions from adaptive tracking procedures. Percept Psychophys 51(3):247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levitt H (1971) Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49:467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin MC, Otaduy MA (eds) (2008) Haptic rendering: foundations, algorithms, and applications. AK Peters, Wellesley, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Louw S, Kappers AML, Koenderink JJ (2000) Haptic detection thresholds of gaussian profiles over the whole range of spatial scales. Exp Brain Res 132(3):369–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Louw S, Kappers AML, Koenderink JJ (2002) Active haptic detection and discrimination of shape. Percept Psychophys 64(7):1108–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morioka M, Griffin MJ (2005) Thresholds for the perception of hand-transmitted vibration: dependence on contact area and contact location. Somatosens Mot Res 22(4):281–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Hogan N, Bizzi E (1985) Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans. J Neurosci 5(10):2732–2743Google Scholar
  28. Payandeh S, Dill J, Zhang J (2005) A study of level-of-detail in haptic rendering. ACM Trans Appl Percept 2(1):15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prattichizzo D, Barni M, Menegaz G, Formaglio A, Tan HZ, Choi S (2007) Perceptual issues in haptic digital watermarking. IEEE Multimedia 14(3):84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shelton BR, Scarrow I (1984) Two-alternative versus three-alternative procedures for threshold estimation. Percept Psychophys 35(4):385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Voisin J, Benoit G, Chapman EC (2002a) Haptic discrimination of object shape in humans: two-dimensional angle discrimination. Exp Brain Res 145(2):239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Voisin J, Lamarre Y, Chapman EC (2002b) Haptic discrimination of object shape in humans: contribution of cutaneous and proprioceptive inputs. Exp Brain Res 145(2):251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weisstein EW (2010) Point-plane distance. From MathWorld—a wolfram web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point-PlaneDistance.html
  34. Zadeh MH, Wang D, Kubica E (2008) Perception-based lossy haptic compression considerations for velocity-based interactions. Multimedia Syst 13(4):275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Haptics and Virtual Reality Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and EngineeringPohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH)PohangRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations