Virtual Reality

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 193–201 | Cite as

An evaluation of asymmetric interfaces for bimanual virtual assembly with haptics

  • Patrick Carlson
  • Judy M. Vance
  • Meisha Berg
Original Article


Immersive computing technology provides a human–computer interface to support natural human interaction with digital data and models. One application for this technology is product assembly methods planning and validation. This paper presents the results of a user study which explores the effectiveness of various bimanual interaction device configurations for virtual assembly tasks. Participants completed two assembly tasks with two device configurations in five randomized bimanual treatment conditions (within subjects). A Phantom Omni® with and without haptics enabled and a 5DT Data Glove were used. Participant performance, as measured by time to assemble, was the evaluation metric. The results revealed that there was no significant difference in performance between the five treatment conditions. However, half of the participants chose the 5DT Data Glove and the haptic-enabled Phantom Omni® as their preferred device configuration. In addition, qualitative comments support both the preference of haptics during the assembly process and comments confirming Guiard’s kinematic chain model.


Haptic devices Virtual reality Interaction devices Interaction techniques Human–computer interaction (HCI) Bimanual interaction 



This work was performed at the Virtual Reality Applications Center at Iowa State University as part of research funded by the National Science Foundation award CMMI-0928774.


  1. Balakrishnan R, Hinckley K (2000) Symmetric bimanual interaction. In: CHI ’00: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 33–40. doi: 10.1145/332040.332404
  2. Balakrishnan R, Kurtenbach G (1999) Exploring bimanual camera control and object manipulation in 3D graphics interfaces. In: CHI ’99: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 56–62. doi: 10.1145/302979.302991
  3. Bowman DA, Hodges LF (1997) An evaluation of techniques for grabbing and manipulating remote objects in immersive virtual environments. In: SI3D ’97: proceedings of the 1997 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 35–ff. doi: 10.1145/253284.253301
  4. Crossan A, Brewster S (2006) Two-handed navigation in a haptic virtual environment. In: CHI ’06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 676–681. doi: 10.1145/1125451.1125589
  5. Dominjon L, Lécuyer A, Burkhardt JM, Andrade-Barroso G, Richir S (2005) The “bubble” technique: interacting with large virtual environments using haptic devices with limited workspace. In: First joint eurohaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment, Pisa, Italy, pp 639–640. doi: 10.1109/WHC.2005.126
  6. Fiorentino M, Uva A, Fabiano MD, Monno G (2010) Improving bi-manual 3D input in cad modelling by part rotation optimisation. Comput Aided Des 42(5):462–470. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2008.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer AA, Vance JM (2003) Phantom haptic device implemented in a projection screen virtual environment. In: IPT/EGVE workshop proceedings. Zurich, Switzerland, pp 225–230Google Scholar
  8. Giachritsis C, Barrio J, Ferre M, Wing A, Ortego J (2009) Evaluation of weight perception during unimanual and bimanual manipulation of virtual objects. In: World haptics 2009 - third joint EuroHaptics conference and symposium on Haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, Salt Lake City, UT, pp 629–634Google Scholar
  9. González-Badillo G, Medellín-Castillo H, Fletcher C, Lim T, Ritchie J, Garbaya S (2012) Effect of weight perception on human performance in a haptic-enabled virtual assembly platform. In: 37th International MATADOR conference, Manchester, England, pp 231–234. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-4480-9
  10. Guiard Y (1987) Asymmetric division of labor in human skilled bimanual action: the kinematic chain as a model. J Motor Behav 19(4):486–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gunn C (2006) Collaborative virtual sculpting with haptic feedback. Virtual Real 10:73–83. doi: 10.1007/s10055-006-0044-4.
  12. Hinckley K, Pausch R, Proffitt D, Patten J, Kassell N (1997) Cooperative bimanual action. In: CHI ’97: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 27–34. doi: 10.1145/258549.258571
  13. Hinckley K, Pausch R, Proffitt D, Kassell NF (1998) Two-handed virtual manipulation. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 5:260–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Isshiki M, Sezaki T, Akahane K, Hashimoto N, Sato M (2008) A proposal of a clutch mechanism for 6dof haptic devices. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial reality and telexistence, Yokohama, Japan, pp 57–63Google Scholar
  15. Kron A, Schmidt G, Petzold B, Zah M, Hinterseer P, Steinbach E (2004) Disposal of explosive ordnances by use of a bimanual haptic telepresence system. IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom 2:1968–1973. doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2004.1308112 Google Scholar
  16. Linn MC, Petersen AC (1985) Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev 56(6):1479–1498.
  17. Loftus EF, Hoffman HG (1989) Misinformation and memory: the creation of new memories. J Exp Psychol Gen 118(1):100–104.
  18. Loftus EF, Miller DG, Burns HJ (1978) Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Memory 4(1):19–31.
  19. Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Baba DM (1984) Bimanual movement control: information processing and interaction effects. Q J Exp Psychol 36(2):335–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McNeely WA, Puterbaugh KD, Troy JJ (1999) Six degree-of-freedom haptic rendering using voxel sampling. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques—SIGGRAPH ’99, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp 401–408. doi: 10.1145/311535.311600.
  21. OpenSceneGraph (2013) Openscenegraph.
  22. Owen R, Kurtenbach G, Fitzmaurice G, Baudel T, Buxton B (2005) When it gets more difficult, use both hands: exploring bimanual curve manipulation. In: In GI 2005 proceedings, pp 17–24Google Scholar
  23. Pavlik RA, Vance JM (2011a) Expanding haptic workspace for coupled-object manipulation. In: ASME 2011 world conference on innovative virtual reality, ASME, Milan, Italy. doi: 10.1115/WINVR2011-5585
  24. Pavlik RA, Vance JM (2011b) VR JuggLua: a framework for VR applications combining Lua, OpenSceneGraph, and VR Juggler. In: Workshop on software engineering and architectures for realtime interactive systems (SEARIS) in IEEE virtual reality, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  25. Pavlik RA, Vance JM (2015) Interacting with grasped objects in expanded haptic workspaces using the bubble technique. ASME J Comput Inf Sci Eng 1–7. doi: 10.1115/1.4031826
  26. Peters M (1985) Constraints in the performance of bimanual tasks and their expression in unskilled and skilled subjects. Q J Exp Psychol 37(2):171–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poupyrev I, Ichikawa T (1999) Manipulating objects in virtual worlds: categorization and empirical evaluation of interaction techniques. J Vis Lang Comput 10(1):19–35. doi: 10.1006/jvlc.1998.0112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shaw C, Green M (1994) Two-handed polygonal surface design. In: Proceedings of UIST 94. Marina del Rey, CA, pp 205–212Google Scholar
  29. Talvas A, Marchal M, Cirio G, Lécuyer A (2013) 3D interaction techniques for bimanual haptics in virtual environments. In: Ferre GM (ed) Multi-finger haptic interaction. Springer series on touch and haptic systems, chap 3, pp 31–53Google Scholar
  30. Vélaz Y, Lozano-Rodero A, Suescun A, Gutiérrez T (2014) Natural and hybrid bimanual interaction for virtual assembly tasks. Virtual Real J 18(3):161–171.
  31. VRJuggler (2013) Vrjuggler.
  32. Vyawahare VS, Stone RT (2012) Asymmetric interface and interactions for bimanual virtual assembly with haptics. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. ASME, Chicago, Illinois, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  33. Vyawahare VS, Stone RT (2013) Evaluation of bimanual stretched-string single object manipulation for virtual assembly with haptics. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2013 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE 2013). ASME, Portland, Oregon, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  34. Vyawahare VS, Vance JM (2009) Human centered multimodal 3D user interface for desktop VR assembly. In: Proceedings of the emerging technologies conference 2009, ETCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human-Computer InteractionIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations