Advertisement

Multi-finger Grasps in a Dynamic Environment

  • William Harwin
  • Alastair Barrow
Part of the Springer Series on Touch and Haptic Systems book series (SSTHS)

Abstract

Most current state-of-the-art haptic devices render only a single force, however almost all human grasps are characterised by multiple forces and torques applied by the fingers and palms of the hand to the object. In this chapter we will begin by considering the different types of grasp and then consider the physics of rigid objects that will be needed for correct haptic rendering. We then describe an algorithm to represent the forces associated with grasp in a natural manner. The power of the algorithm is that it considers only the capabilities of the haptic device and requires no model of the hand, thus applies to most practical grasp types. The technique is sufficiently general that it would also apply to multi-hand interactions, and hence to collaborative interactions where several people interact with the same rigid object. Key concepts in friction and rigid body dynamics are discussed and applied to the problem of rendering multiple forces to allow the person to choose their grasp on a virtual object and perceive the resulting movement via the forces in a natural way. The algorithm also generalises well to support computation of multi-body physics

Keywords

Grip Force Collision Detection Virtual Object Haptic Device Haptic Interface 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many individuals have contributed to this work, including technical and academic staff, as well as members of the tHRIL laboratory. The authors are pleased to acknowledge in particular the contributions made by Dr Nic Melder and Mr Sebastian McKnight.

References

  1. 1.
    Anitescu, M., & Potra, F. A. (1997). Formulating dynamic multi-rigid-body contact problems with friction as solvable linear complementarity problems. Nonlinear Dynamics, 14(3), 231–247. MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Åström, K. J., & de Wit, C. C. (2008). Revisiting the LuGre friction model: stick-slip motion and rate dependence IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 28(6), 101–114. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baraff, D. (1994). Fast contact force computation for nonpenetrating rigid bodies. In Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques (pp. 23–34). New York: ACM. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbagli, F., Salisbury, K. Jr, & Devengenzo, R. (2003). Enabling multi-finger, multi-hand virtualized grasping. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, ICRA’03 (Vol. 1, pp. 809–815). New York: IEEE Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barrow, A., & Harwin, W. (2008). High bandwidth, large workspace haptic interaction: flying phantoms. In Haptic interfaces for virtual environments and teleoperator systems. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooks, F. P. Jr. (1999). What’s real about virtual reality? IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 19(6), 16–27. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks, F. P. Jr., Ouh-Young, M., Batter, J. J., & Kilpatrick, P. J. (1990). Project GROPEHaptic displays for scientific visualization. In ACM SIGGraph computer graphics (Vol. 24, pp. 177–185). New York: ACM. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bullock, I. M., & Dollar, A. M. (2011). Classifying human manipulation behavior. In IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 2011) (pp. 532–537). New York: IEEE Press. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canudas de Wit, C., Olsson, H., Astrom, K. J., & Lischinsky, P. (1995). A new model for control of systems with friction. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 40(3), 419–425. MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colgate, J. E., & Schenkel, G. G. (1994). Passivity of a class of sampled-data systems: application to haptic interfaces. In American control conference (pp. 3236–3240). Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coumans, E., et al. (2006). Bullet physics library. Open source: bulletphysics.org.
  12. 12.
    Cox, M. J., Quinn, B. F., Newton, J. T., Banerjee, A., & Woolford, M. (2012). Researching haptics in higher education: the complexity of developing haptics virtual learning systems and evaluating its impact on students’ learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 156–166. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.009. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Craig, J. J. (1989). Introduction to robotics: mechanics and control. Reading: Addison–Wesley. ISBN 0-201-09528-9. UR call 629.892-CRA. MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cutkosky, M. R. (1989). On grasp choice, grasp models, and the design of hands for manufacturing tasks. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 5(3), 269–279. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Endo, T., Kawasaki, H., Mouri, T., Ishigure, Y., Shimomura, H., Matsumura, M., & Koketsu, K. (2011). Five-fingered haptic interface robot: HIRO III. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 4(1), 14–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flanagan, J. R., & Wing, A. M. (1990). The stability of precision grip forces during cyclic arm movements with a hand-held load. Experimental Brain Research, 105(3), 455–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flanagan, J. R., & Wing, A. M. (1997). The role of internal models in motion planning and control: evidence from grip force adjustments during movements of hand-held loads. The Journal of Neuroscience, 17(4), 1519. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gauldie, D., Wright, M., & Shillito, A. M. (2004). 3D modelling is not for WIMPS part ii: stylus/mouse clicks. In Proceedings of eurohaptics (pp. 182–189). Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haessig, D. A. Jr, & Friedland, B. (1991). On the modeling and simulation of friction. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 113(3), 354–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haggard, P., & Wing, A. (1995). Coordinated responses following mechanical perturbation of the arm during prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 102, 483–494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hyun, J.-W., Kumazawa, I., & Sato, M. (2007). A new measurement methodology of multi-finger tracking for handheld device control using mixed reality. In Annual conference, SICE 2007 (pp. 2315–2320). New York: IEEE Press. doi: 10.1109/SICE.2007.4421375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jiménez, P., Thomas, F., & Torras, C. (2001). 3d collision detection: a survey. Computers & Graphics, 25(2), 269–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johansson, R. S., & Westling, G. (1984). Roles of glabrous skin receptors and sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when lifting rougher or more slippery objects. Experimental Brain Research, 56(3), 550–564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson, D. E., & Willemsen, P. (2003). Six degree-of-freedom haptic rendering of complex polygonal models. In Proceedings of the 11th symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, HAPTICS 2003 (pp. 229–235). New York: IEEE Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Körding, K. P., & Wolpert, D. M. (2004). Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature, 427, 244–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Light, C. M., Chappell, P. H., & Kyberd, P. J. (2002). Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: normative data, reliability, and validity. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 776–783. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Loureiro, R. C. V., & Harwin, W. S. (2007). Reach and grasp therapy: design and control of a 9-dof robotic neuro-rehabilitation system. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th international conference on rehabilitation robotics, 12–15 June 2007 (pp. 757–763). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Loureiro, R. C. V., Lamperd, B., Collin, C., & Harwin, W. S. (2009). Reach and grasp therapy: effects of the gentle/g system assessing sub-acute stroke whole-arm rehabilitation. In IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (pp. 755–760). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McKnight, S., Melder, N., Barrow, A. L., Harwin, W. S., & Wann, J. P. (2005). Perceptual cues for orientation in a two finger haptic grasp task. In First joint eurohaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, 18–20 March (pp. 549–550). New York: IEEE Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Melder, N. (2011). Multi-finger manipulation physics for haptic rendering. PhD thesis, University of Reading. Call number, THESIS-R10821. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Melder, N., & Harwin, W. (2002). Improved rendering for multi-finger manipulation using friction cone based god-objects. In S. Wall, M. Wright, & A. M. Shillito (Eds.), Proceedings of eurohaptics conference (pp. 82–85). Edinburgh College of Art and University of Edinburgh. Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Melder, N., & Harwin, W. S. (2004). Extending the friction cone algorithm for arbitrary polygon based haptic objects. In Haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems (pp. 234–241). New York: IEEE Press. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Melder, N., & Harwin, W. S. (2005). Force shading and bump mapping using the friction cone algorithm. In First joint eurohaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems (pp. 573–575). New York: IEEE Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Melder, N., Harwin, W., & Sharkey, P. (2003). Translation and rotation of multi-point contacted virtual objects. In Proceedings of eurohaptics conference (pp. 218–227). Trinity College Dublin and Media Lab Europe. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pawar, V. M. (2013). Exploring the influence of haptic force feedback on 3D selection strategies. PhD thesis, University College London. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rock, I., & Harris, C. S. (1967). Vision and touch. Scientific American, 216(5), 96–104. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0567-96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rock, I., & Victor, J. (1964). Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science, 143(3606), 594–596. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ruspini, D. C., Kolarov, K., & Khatib, O. (1997). The haptic display of complex graphical environments. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques (pp. 345–352). New York/Reading: ACM/Addison–Wesley Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scali, S., Wright, M., & Shillito, A. M. (2003). 3D modelling is not for WIMPs. In Proceedings of HCI international. Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schneck, C. M., & Henderson, A. (1990). Descriptive analysis of the developmental progression of grip position for pencil and crayon control in nondysfunctional children. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44(10), 893–900. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sheridan, T. (1992). Telerobotics, automation and human supervisory control. Cambridge: MIT Press. (Background) UR call 620.46-SHE. Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Steinfeld, E. (1986). Hands-on architecture. http://www.access-board.gov/research/handsonarch/html/recommendations%20for%20standards.htm. December 1986. Adaptive Environments Laboratory, Department of Architecture, SUNY/Buffalo.
  43. 43.
    Stewart, D., & Trinkle, J. C. (2000). An implicit time-stepping scheme for rigid body dynamics with coulomb friction. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, ICRA’00 (Vol. 1, pp. 162–169). New York: IEEE Press. Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tse, B., Harwin, W., Barrow, A., Quinn, B., San Diego, J., & Cox, M. (2010). Design and development of a haptic dental training system—haptel. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6192, Part II, pp. 101–108). Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Turner, A. (Ed.) (1981). The practice of occupational therapy: an introduction to the treatment pf physical dysfunction. London: Churchill Livingstone. Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    van den Bergen, G. (1999). A fast and robust gjk implementation for collision detection of convex objects. Journal of Graphics Tools, 4(2), 7–25. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van den Bergen, G. (2001). Proximity queries and penetration depth computation on 3d game objects. In Game developers conference. Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wall, S., & Harwin, W. (2001). Design of a multiple contact point haptic interface. In Proceedings of eurohaptics conference (pp. 146–148). Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wing, A. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (1998). Anticipating dynamic loads in handling objects. In Proceedings of the ASME dynamic systems and control division (Vol. 64, pp. 139–143). New York: ASME. Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wood, J., Magennis, M., Arias, E. F. C., Gutierrez, T., Graupp, H., & Bergamasco, M. (2003). The design and evaluation of a computer game for the blind in the GRAB haptic audio virtual environment. In Proceedings of eurohaptics. Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zilles, C., & Salisbury, K. (1995). A constraint-based god-object method for haptic display. In IROS, international conference on intelligent robots and systems. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Systems EngineeringUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  2. 2.Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations