Advertisement

A Method for the Verification of Haptic Algorithms

  • Joan De Boeck
  • Chris Raymaekers
  • Karin Coninx
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3941)

Abstract

The number of haptic algorithms has been growing over the past few years. However, little research has been performed in evaluating these algorithms. This paper provides both a theoretical framework and a practical discussion of how the correctness and performance of force-feedback algorithms can be verified. The practical discussion is necessary as the theoretical framework proves that an infinite number of cases should be considered when evaluating a haptic algorithm. However, using statistical techniques, this evaluation can be performed within a reasonable frame of time. The evaluation method in this paper has itself been validated by evaluating two algorithms. From this test, we can conclude that the evaluation method is a reliable method for verifying if haptic algorithms are correct.

Keywords

Object Space Virtual Object Haptic Device Path Space Just Noticeable Difference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Acosta, E., Temkin, B.: Scene complexity: A measure for real-time stable haptic applications. In: Proceedings of the sixth PHANToM Users Group Workshop, Aspen, CO, USA, October 27–30 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, T., Brown, N.: The activepolygon polygonal algorithm for haptic force generation. In: Proceedings of the sixth PHANToM Users Group Workshop, Aspen, CO, USA, October 27–30 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avila, R.S.: Volume Haptics. In: Haptics: From Basic Principles to Advanced Applications, August 8–13. Course Notes for SIGGRAPH 1999, vol. 38. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burdea, G.C.: Force And Touch Feedback For Virtual Reality. Wiley InterScience, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Boeck, J., Raymaekers, C., Coninx, K.: Assessing the increase in haptic load when using a dual phantom setup. In: Proceedings of the seventh PHANToM Users Group Workshop, Santa Fe, NM, USA, October 26–39 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Boeck, J., Raymaekers, C., Coninx, K.: Aspects of haptic feedback in a multi-modal interface for object modelling. Virtual Reality 6(4), 257–270 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kabeláč, Z.: Rendering stiff walls with PHANToM. In: Proceedings of the 2nd PHANToM Users Reserach Symposium 2000, Zurich, CH, July 6-7. Selected Readings in Vision and Graphics, vol. 8 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirkpatrick, A.E., Douglas, S.A: Application-based evaluation of haptic interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Orlando, FL, USA, March 24–25, pp. 32–39 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McGee, M.R., Gray, P., Brewster, S.: The effective combination of haptic and auditory textural information. In: Brewster, S., Murray-Smith, R. (eds.) Haptic HCI 2000. LNCS, vol. 2058, pp. 118–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Novint. e-Touch Programmers Guide (2000–2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oakley, I., RoseMcGee, M., Brewster, S., Gray, P.: Putting the feel in ‘look and feel’. In: Proceedings of CHI 2000, The Hague, NL, April 1–6, pp. 415–422 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raymaekers, C., Beets, K., van Reeth, F.: Fast haptic rendering of complex objects using subdivision surfaces. In: Proceedings of the sixth PHANToM Users Group Workshop, Aspen, CO, USA, October 27–30 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raymaekers, C., Coninx, K.: Improving haptic rendering of complex scenes using spatial partitioning. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2003, Dublin, IE, July 6–9, pp. 193–205 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raymaekers, C., De Boeck, J., Coninx, K.: An empirical approach for the evaluation of haptic algorithms. Accepted for First Joint EuroHaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WorldHaptics 2005), Pisa, IT, March 18–20 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raymaekers, C., Van Reeth., F.: Algorithms for haptic rendering of CSG trees. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2002, Edinburgh, UK, July 8–10, pp. 86–91 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruspini, D.: Haptic Rendering. In: Haptics: From Basic Principles to Advanced Applications. Course Notes for SIGGRAPH 1999, vol. 38. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    SensAble. GHOST Programmers Guide (1996–2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sutcliffe, A., Gault, B.: Heuristic evaluation of virtual reality applications. Interacting with Computers 16(4), 631–849 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zilles, C.B., Salisbury, J.K.: A constraint-based god-object method for haptic display. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, August 1995, vol. 3, pp. 146–151 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan De Boeck
    • 1
  • Chris Raymaekers
    • 1
  • Karin Coninx
    • 1
  1. 1.Expertise Centre for Digital Media (EDM) and transnationale, Universiteit LimburgHasselt UniversityDiepenbeekBelgium

Personalised recommendations