Haptic-Auditory Rendering and Perception of Contact Stiffness

  • Federico Avanzini
  • Paolo Crosato
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4129)


This paper presents an experiment on the relative contributions of haptic and auditory information to bimodal judgments of contact stiffness using a rigid probe. Haptic feedback is rendered via a Phantom® OmniTM device, while auditory stimuli are obtained using a physically-based audio model of impact, in which the colliding objects are described as modal resonators that interact through a non-linear impact force. The impact force can be controlled through a stiffness parameter, that influences the contact time of the impact. Previous studies have already indicated that this parameter has a major influence on the auditory perception of hardness/stiffness. In the experiment subjects had to tap on virtual surfaces, and were presented with audio-haptic feedback. In each condition the haptic stiffness had the same value while the acoustic stiffness was varied. Perceived stiffness was determined using an absolute magnitude-estimation procedure: subjects were asked to rate the surfaces on an ordered scale of verbal labels, based on their perceived stiffness. The results indicate that subjects consistently ranked the surfaces according to the auditory stimuli.


Impact Force Haptic Feedback Auditory Feedback Modal Synthesis Haptic Perception 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hahn, J.K., Fouad, H., Gritz, L., Lee, J.W.: Integrating sounds in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environment 7(1), 67–77 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Welch, R.B., Warren, D.H.: Intersensory interactions. In: Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L., Thomas, J.P. (eds.) Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Sensory processes and perception, vol. 1, pp. 1–36. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ernst, M.O., Bülthoff, H.H.: Merging the senses into a robust percept. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 8(4), 162–169 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gaver, W.W.: What in the world do we hear? an ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology 5(1), 1–29 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaver, W.W.: How do we hear in the world? explorations of ecological acoustics. Ecological Psychology 5(4), 285–313 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Avanzini, F., Rath, M., Rocchesso, D., Ottaviani, L.: Low-level sound models: resonators, interactions, surface textures. In: Rocchesso, D., Fontana, F. (eds.) The Sounding Object, pp. 137–172. Mondo Estremo, Firenze (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van den Doel, K., Kry, P.G., Pai, D.K.: Foleyautomatic: Physically-based sound effects for interactive simulation and animation. In: Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH 2001, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 537–544 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klatzky, R.L., Pai, D.K., Krotkov, E.P.: Perception of material from contact sounds. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environment 9(4), 399–410 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DiFilippo, D., Pai, D.K.: The AHI: An audio and haptic interface for contact interactions. In: Proc. ACM Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 2000), San Diego, CA (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lederman, S.J.: Auditory texture perception. Perception 8(1), 93–103 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lederman, S.J., Klatzky, R.L., Morgan, T., Hamilton, C.: Integrating multimodal information about surface texture via a probe: Relative contribution of haptic and touch-produced sound sources. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (HAPTICS 2002), Orlando, FL, pp. 97–104 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guest, S., Catmur, C., Lloyd, D., Spence, C.: Audiotactile interactions in roughness perception. Exp. Brain Research 146(2), 161–171 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGee, M.R., Gray, P., Brewster, S.: Mixed feelings: Multimodal perception of virtual roughness. In: Proc. Int. Conf. EuroHaptics, Edinburgh, pp. 47–52 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    DiFranco, D.E., Beauregard, G.L., Srinivasan, M.A.: The effect of auditory cues on the haptic perception of stiffness in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division, DSC, vol. 61 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freed, D.J.: Auditory correlates of perceived mallet hardness for a set of recorded percussive events. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87(1), 311–322 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giordano, B.: Sound source perception in impact sounds. PhD thesis, Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Italy (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adrien, J.M.: The missing link: Modal synthesis. In: De Poli, G., Piccialli, A., Roads, C. (eds.) Representations of Musical Signals, pp. 269–297. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van den Doel, K., Pai, D.K.: Modal Synthesis for Vibrating Objects. In: Greenebaum, K. (ed.) Audio Anecdotes. AK Peters, Natick, MA (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Brien, J.F., Shen, C., Gatchalian, C.M.: Synthesizing sounds from rigid-body simulations. In: Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH 2002, San Antonio, TX, pp. 175–181 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hunt, K.H., Crossley, F.R.E.: Coefficient of restitution interpreted as damping in vibroimpact. ASME J. Applied Mech. 42, 440–445 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Timoshenko, S.P., Goodier, J.N.: Mc Graw Hill, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Avanzini, F., Rocchesso, D.: Modeling Collision Sounds: Non-Linear Contact Force. In: Proc. COST-G6 Conf. Digital Audio Effects (DAFx 2001), Limerick, pp. 61–66 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Avanzini, F., Rocchesso, D.: Physical modeling of impacts: theory and experiments on contact time and spectral centroid. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Sound and Music Computing (SMC 2006), Paris, pp. 287–293 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Basdogan, C., Srinivasan, M.A.: Haptic rendering in virtual environments. In: Stanney, K.M. (ed.) Virtual Environments Handbook, pp. 117–134. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Colgate, J.E., Brown, J.M.: Factors Affecting the Z-Width of a Haptic Display. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics & Automation, San Diego, pp. 3205–3210 (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuchenbecker, K.J., Fiene, J., Niemeyer, G.: Improving Contact Realism through Event-Based Haptic Feedback. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Comp. Graphics 13(2), 219–230 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federico Avanzini
    • 1
  • Paolo Crosato
    • 1
  1. 1.Dep. of Information EngineeringUniversity of PadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations