Haptic discrimination of virtual surface slope
- 262 Downloads
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.
KeywordsDiscrimination Surface slope Haptic rendering Virtual surface Mesh simplification Mesh manipulation
This work was supported in part by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant (No. 2013R1A2A2A01016907 and No. 2011-0027995) and by the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) support program (NIPA-2013-H0301-13-3005) supervised by the NIPA (National IT Industry Promotion Agency), all funded by the Korea government (MSIP).
- 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
- 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
- Garland M (1999) Multiresolution modeling: survey and future opportunities. In: Proceedings of Eurographics on state of the art report, pp 111–131Google Scholar
- Henriques DYP, Soechting JF (2003) Bias and sensitivity in the haptic perception of geometry. Exp Brain Res 150(1):95–108Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Lin MC, Otaduy MA (eds) (2008) Haptic rendering: foundations, algorithms, and applications. AK Peters, Wellesley, MAGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Weisstein EW (2010) Point-plane distance. From MathWorld—a wolfram web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point-PlaneDistance.html