Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 67, Issue 2, pp 455–472 | Cite as

Effect of kinesthetic and tactile haptic feedback on the quality of experience of edutainment applications

  • Abdelwahab Hamam
  • Mohamad Eid
  • Abdulmotaleb El Saddik


Haptic technologies and applications have received enormous attention in the last decade. The incorporation of haptic modality into multimedia applications adds excitement and enjoyment to an application. It also adds a more natural feel to multimedia applications, that otherwise would be limited to vision and audition, by engaging as well the user’s sense of touch, giving a more intrinsic feel essential for ambient intelligent applications. However, the improvement of an application’s Quality of Experience (QoE) by the addition of haptic feedback is still not completely understood. The research presented in this paper focuses on the effect of haptic feedback and what it potentially adds to the experience of the user as opposed to the traditional visual and auditory feedback. In essence, it investigates certain issues regarding stylus-based haptic education applications and haptic-enhanced entertainment videos. To this end, we used two haptic applications: the haptic handwriting learning tool to experiment with force feedback haptic interaction and the tactile YouTube application for tactile haptic feedback. In both applications, our analysis shows that the addition of haptic feedback will increase the QoE in the absence of fatigue or discomfort for this category of applications. This implies that the incorporation of haptic modality (both force feedback as well as tactile feedback) has positively contributed to the overall QoE for the users.


Force feedback evaluation Haptics in ambient environments Human computer interaction Quality of Experience (QoE) Tactile evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Aarts E (2004) Ambient intelligence: a multimedia perspective. Multimed IEEE 11(1):12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdur Rahman M, Alkhaldi A, Cha J, El Saddik A (2010) Adding haptic feature to YouTube. Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia, Firenze, Italy. pp 1643–1646Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersson U, Lyxell B, Rönnberg J, Spens KE (2001) Effects of tactile training on visual speechreading: performance changes related to individual differences in cognitive skills. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 6(2):116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aron A, Aron EN (2003) Statistics for psychology, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall/Pearson EducationGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basdogan C, Ho CH, Srinivasan MA, Slater M (2000) An experimental study on the role of touch in shared virtual environments. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI) 7(4):443–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen J, Terrence P (2008) Effects of tactile cueing on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multitasking environment. Ergonomics 51(8):1137–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coles TR, Meglan D, John NW (2011) The role of haptics in medical training simulators: a survey of the state of the art. Haptics IEEE Trans 4(1):51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebrahimi T (2009) Quality of multimedia experience: past, present and future. Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Beijing, China. pp 3–4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eid M, Jongeun Cha, El Saddik A (2008) HugMe: a haptic videoconferencing system for interpersonal communication. Virtual environments, human-computer interfaces and measurement Systems, 2008. VECIMS 2008. IEEE Conference on, 5–9Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eid MA, Mansour M, Saddik AHE, Iglesias R (2007) A haptic multimedia handwriting learning system. Emme '07: proceedings of the International Workshop on Educational Multimedia and Multimedia Education, Augsburg, Bavaria, Germany. 103–108Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eid M, Orozco M, El Saddik A (2007) A guided tour in haptic audio visual environments and applications. Int J Adv Media Comm 1(3):265–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El Saddik (2007) The potential of haptics technologies. Instrum Meas Mag IEEE 10(1):10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenway RB, Faddis TN (1993) Effects of tactile information on telerobotic performance. Proc SPIE 1833:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gwilliam JC, Mahvash M, Vagvolgyi B, Vacharat A, Yuh DD, Okamura AM (2009) Effects of haptic and graphical force feedback on teleoperated palpation. Robotics and automation, 2009. ICRA '09. IEEE International Conference on, 677–682Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamam A, Eid M, El Saddik A, Georganas, ND (2008) A fuzzy logic system for evaluating quality of experience of haptic-based applications. Eurohaptics, Madrid. pp 129–138Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamam A, Eid M, Saddik AE, Georganas ND (2008) A quality of experience model for haptic user interfaces. HAS '08: proceedings of the 2008 ambi-sys workshop on haptic user interfaces in ambient media systems, Quebec City, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hamam A, Georganas ND (2008) A comparison of mamdani and sugeno fuzzy inference systems for evaluating the quality of experience of hapto-audio-visual applications. HAVE'08Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamam A, Georganas ND, El Saddik A (2010) Effect of haptics on the quality of experience. Haptic Audio-Visual Environments and Games (HAVE), 2010 IEEE International Symposium on, 1–6Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jain R (2004) Quality of experience. Multimed IEEE 11(1):95–96Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    King C, Culjat MO, Franco ML, Lewis CE, Dutson EP, Grundfest WS et al (2009) Tactile feedback induces reduced grasping force in robot-assisted surgery. Haptics IEEE Trans 2(2):103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mansour M, Eid M, El-Saddik A (2007) A multimedia handwriting learning and evaluation tool. International Workshop on Educational Multimedia and Multimedia Education, pp 103–108Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Microsoft Inc. (2007) Quality of experience: a strategic competitive advantage of microsoft unified communicationsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Naud M, Ullah S, Richard P, Otmane S, Mallem M (2009) Effect of tactile feedback and viewpoint on task performance in a collaborative virtual environmment. Joint virtual reality conf of EGVE-ICAT-EuroVRGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pawar VM, Steed A (2009) Evaluating the influence of haptic force-feedback on 3D selection tasks using natural egocentric gestures. Virtual reality conference, 2009. VR 2009. IEEE, 11–18Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rec I (2006) P. 800.1, Mean opinion score (MOS) terminology. International Telecommunication Union, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rec I (2008) P. 10/G. 100 (incl. amendment 2). Vocabulary for performance and quality of serviceGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robles-De-La-Torre G (2006) The importance of the sense of touch in virtual and real environments. Multimed IEEE 13(3):24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roid GH (2004) Quality of performance and change-sensitive assessment of cognitive ability. Intl test users conf, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Srinivasan MA, Basdogan C (1997) Haptics in virtual environments: taxonomy, research status, and challenges. Comput Graph 21(4):393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van der Putten EPW, Van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Goossens RHM, Jakimowicz JJ, Dankelman J (2010) The effect of augmented feedback on grasp force in laparoscopic grasp control. Haptics IEEE Trans 3(4):280–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Viau A, Najm M, Chapman CE, Levin MF (2005) Effect of tactile feedback on movement speed and precision during work-related tasks using a computer mouse. Hum Factors: J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 47(4):816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wagner CR, Stylopoulos N, Jackson PG, Howe RD (2007) The benefit of force feedback in surgery: examination of blunt dissection. Presence: Teleop Virt Environ 16(3):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Whalen TE, Noel S, Stewart J (2003) Measuring the human side of virtual reality. IEEE International Symposium on Virtual Environments, Human-Computer Interfaces and Measurement Systems (VECIMS '03). pp 8–12Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wu W, Arefin A, Rivas R, Nahrstedt K, Sheppard R, Yang Z (2009) Quality of experience in distributed interactive multimedia environments: Toward a theoretical framework. Proceedings of the Seventeen ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp 81–490Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdelwahab Hamam
    • 1
  • Mohamad Eid
    • 1
  • Abdulmotaleb El Saddik
    • 1
  1. 1.DISCOVER Lab, University of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations