This commit is contained in:
2024-09-29 14:09:31 +02:00
parent f2d82affe7
commit d5956ad176
14 changed files with 25 additions and 25 deletions

View File

@@ -83,14 +83,14 @@ This design led to a total of 5 vibrotactile positionings \x 2 vibration contact
\subsection{Apparatus and Procedure}
\label{apparatus}
Apparatus and experimental procedure were very similar to the \chapref{visual_hand}, as described in \secref[visual_hand]{apparatus} and \secref[visual_hand]{protocol}, respectively.
Apparatus and experimental procedure were similar to the \chapref{visual_hand}, as described in \secref[visual_hand]{apparatus} and \secref[visual_hand]{protocol}, respectively.
We report here only the differences.
We employed the same vibrotactile device used by \cite{devigne2020power}.
It is composed of two encapsulated \ERM (\secref[related_work]{vibrotactile_actuators}) vibration motors (Pico-Vibe 304-116, Precision Microdrive, UK).
They are small and very light (\qty{5}{\mm} \x \qty{20}{\mm}, \qty{1.2}{\g}) actuators capable of vibration frequencies from \qtyrange{120}{285}{\Hz} and
They are small and light (\qty{5}{\mm} \x \qty{20}{\mm}, \qty{1.2}{\g}) actuators capable of vibration frequencies from \qtyrange{120}{285}{\Hz} and
amplitudes from \qtyrange{0.2}{1.15}{\g}.
They have a latency of \qty{20}{\ms} that we partially compensated for at the software level with slightly larger colliders to trigger the vibrations very close the moment the finger touched the cube.
They have a latency of \qty{20}{\ms} that we partially compensated for at the software level with slightly larger colliders to trigger the vibrations close the moment the finger touched the cube.
These two outputs vary linearly together, based on the tension applied.
They were controlled by an Arduino Pro Mini (\qty{3.3}{\V}) and a custom board that delivered the tension independently to each motor.
A small \qty{400}{mAh} Li-ion battery allowed for 4 hours of constant vibration at maximum intensity.

View File

@@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ In a user study, we compared sixteen visuo-haptic renderings of the hand as the
Results showed that delocalized vibrotactile haptic hand rendering improved the perceived effectiveness, realism, and usefulness when it is provided close to the contact point.
%However, the farthest positioning on the contralateral hand gave the best performance even though it was disliked: the unfamiliarity of the positioning probably caused the participants to take more effort to consider the haptic stimuli and to focus more on the task.
The visual hand rendering was perceived less necessary than the vibrotactile haptic hand rendering, but still provided a useful feedback on the hand tracking.
This study provide evidence that moving away the feedback from the inside of the hand is a simple but very promising approach for wearable haptics in \AR.
This study provide evidence that moving away the feedback from the inside of the hand is a simple but promising approach for wearable haptics in \AR.
If integration with the hand tracking system allows it, and if the task requires it, a haptic ring worn on the middle or proximal phalanx seems preferable.
However, a wrist-mounted haptic device will be able to provide richer feedback by embedding more diverse haptic actuators with larger bandwidths and maximum amplitudes, while being less obtrusive than a ring.
Finally, we think that the visual hand rendering complements the haptic hand rendering very well by providing continuous feedback on the hand tracking, and that it can be disabled during the grasping phase to avoid redundancy with the haptic feedback of the contact with the \VO.
Finally, we think that the visual hand rendering complements the haptic hand rendering well by providing continuous feedback on the hand tracking, and that it can be disabled during the grasping phase to avoid redundancy with the haptic feedback of the contact with the \VO.