Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:22:42.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Figure and texture presentation capabilities of a tactile mouse equipped with a display pad of stimulus pins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Masahiro Ohka ,
Hiroshi Koga ,
Yukihiro Mouri ,
Tokuhiro Sugiura ,
Tetsu Miyaoka  and
Yasunaga Mitsuya
Masahiro Ohka*
Affiliation:
Department of Complex Systems Science, Graduate School of Information Science, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan.
Hiroshi Koga
Affiliation:
Nize Inc., Kitajima 1-3-13-302, Gifu 502-0911, Japan.
Yukihiro Mouri
Affiliation:
Toyota Motor Company, Toyota-cho 1, Toyota 471-8571, Japan.
Tokuhiro Sugiura
Affiliation:
Computer Center, Mie University, Kamihama-cho 1515, Tsu 514-8507, Japan.
Tetsu Miyaoka
Affiliation:
Faculty of Computer Science, Shizuoka Institute of Science and Technology, Toyosawa 2200-2, Fukuroi 437-8555, Japan.
Yasunaga Mitsuya
Affiliation:
Department of Micro System Engineering, Graduate School and School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 466-8555, Japan.
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

To obtain specifications for a tactile display that would be effective in virtual reality and tele-existence systems, we have developed two types of matrix-type experimental tactile displays. One is for virtual figures (display A) and the other is for virtual textures (display B). Display A's pad has a 4 × 6 array of stimulus pins, each 0.8 mm in diameter. Three pad configurations, in which distances between any two adjacent pins (pin pitch) are 1.2, 1.9, or 2.5 mm, were developed to examine the influence of distance on a human operator's determination of virtual figures. Display B has an 8 × 8 array of stimulus pins, each 0.3 mm in diameter and with 1-or 1.8-mm pin pitch, because presentation of virtual textures was presumed to require a higher pin density. To establish a design method for these matrix-type tactile displays, we performed a series of psychophysical experiments using displays A and B. By evaluating variations in the correct answer percentage and threshold caused by different pin arrays and different pin strokes, we determined under what conditions the operator could best feel the virtual figures and textures. The results revealed that the two-point threshold should be adopted as the pitch between pins in the design of the tactile display, that a pin stroke should exceed 0.25 mm, and that the adjustment method is the most appropriate to evaluate the capabilities of tactile displays. Finally, when we compared the virtual texture with the real texture, we found that the threshold for the real texture is almost 1/3rd that of the virtual texture. This result implies that it is effective to present variations in patterns caused by rotation and variation in shearing force, itself produced by relative motion between the finger surface and object surface.

Keywords

Human-machine systemsVirtual realityTactile displayPiezoelectric actuatorMatrix-typeStriped textureOptimal pitchConstant stimuliAdjustment methodPerceptible pin stroke
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , July 2007 , pp. 451 - 460
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ikei, Y., Yamada, M. and Fukuda, S., “Tactile Texture Presentation by Vibratory Pin Arrays Based on Surface Height Maps,” Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Conference and Exposition (1999) pp. 51–58.Google Scholar
2. Takahashi, M., Nara, T., Tachi, S. and Higuchi, T., “A Tactile Display Using Surface Acoustic Wave,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (2000) pp. 364–367.Google Scholar
3. Tanaka, Y., Yamauchi, H. and Amemiya, K., “Wearable Haptic Display for Immersive Virtual Environment,” Fifth JFPS International Symposium (2002) pp. 309–310.Google Scholar
4. Shinohara, M., Shimizu, Y. and Mochizuki, A., “Three-dimensional tactile display for the blind,” IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 3, 249–255 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Shimojo, M., Shinohara, M. and Fukui, Y., “Human shape recognition performance for 3-D tactile display,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybern., Part A: Syst. Humans 29 (6), pp. 637–644 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Iwata, H., Yano, H., Nakaizumi, F. and Kawamura, R., “Project FEELEX: Adding Haptic Surface to Graphics,” Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH (2001) pp. 469–475.Google Scholar
7. Ohka, M. and Muramatsu, Y., “Fine Texture Presentation System for Tactile Virtual Reality,” Proceedings of the WMC-99 Second World Manufacturing Congress (1999) pp. 57–62.Google Scholar
8. Watanabe, T., Kume, Y. and Ifukube, T., “Shape discrimination with a tactile mouse,” J. Inst. Image Inf. TV Eng. 54 (6), pp. 840–847 (2000) (in Japanese).Google Scholar
9. Konyo, M., Tadokoro, S., Hira, M. and Takamori, T., “Quantitative Evaluation of Artificial Tactile Feel Display Integrated with Visual Information,” Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE/RSJ Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2002) pp. 3060–3065.Google Scholar
10. Gesheider, G. A, Psychophysics: The Fundamentals (3rd Edn.) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey, 1997).Google Scholar