Wearable Haptics for Directing
Comparing the feasibility of the Head Mounted tactile display with the
Waist Mounted tactil...
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Van Erp et. al [1] demonstrated that tactile feedback on the torso
immediately leads to a percept of e...
DESIGN
3
1. The forehead, occipital, and temple regions of the
head are most sensitive to vibration
stimulation. Therefore, these r...
4-tactor display design
Abdomen-mounted tactile display belt
Head-mounted tactile display belt
Conveys point-to-point info...
Feasibility Study
6
Keyboard
Simulation
Band/Belt
Arduino
Within Subject design with 10 participants
where they navigate through a simulation
...
Magnetometer
+ Bluetooth
Band/Belt
Arduino
Within Subject design with 5 participants where
the tactors orient the n in a p...
Participants asked to orient themselves(with eyes shut) based on feedback from the band.
Demo Video: https://vimeo.com/125...
Results
10
• There was no difference in understanding the stimulus from either of the bands though head band
had a slightly higher ra...
USER PREFERENCE
Those who preferred Head:
•Preferred wearing Head gear
•Deemed performance important than comfort
•Indicat...
5 participants took part in the study, all of whom were Male with an average age of 22.6 years
Comfort Ratings (Head: M = ...
Head vs Waist Plots for Experiment 2
14
Conclusion
• Waist band was found to be more comfortable than Headband
• Head band was found to be more prompt than Waistb...
of 15

NASA: Wearable haptics for directing

Comparing feasibility of a Haptic headband vs waistband during navigation where vision may have been compromised . Done in collaboration with NASA.
Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Published in: Design      
Source: www.slideshare.net


Transcripts - NASA: Wearable haptics for directing

  • 1. Wearable Haptics for Directing Comparing the feasibility of the Head Mounted tactile display with the Waist Mounted tactile display Apurva Gupta, Shashank Jagirdar, Manasvi Lalwani, Thad Starner, Clint Zeagler
  • 2. BACKGROUND RESEARCH Van Erp et. al [1] demonstrated that tactile feedback on the torso immediately leads to a percept of external direction. This effect is called ‘tap-on-the-shoulder’ effect, and is akin to a person’s reflex action to look in the direction they have been tapped on their shoulder. We hypothesized that a similar effect could be produced on the head, since it has similar affordances. Further research revealed that while a lot of work has been done in exploring Torso-mounted tactile displays and Head-mounted displays, there was a gap in literature comparing the two. 1. Van Erp, J.B.F. (2001). Tactile navigation display. In: S. Brewster, R. Murray_Smith(Eds.): Haptic Human Computer Interaction. Lecture notes in computer science Vol.2058, pp. 165-173. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. 2
  • 3. DESIGN 3
  • 4. 1. The forehead, occipital, and temple regions of the head are most sensitive to vibration stimulation. Therefore, these regions should be considered for purposes related to head tactile communication. 2. A four-tactor, circular head array is recommended for an HMTD design (alongside). 3. The vertex (CZ) and the temples (T3, T4) are head locations that are most suitable for BC vibrator placement. The temples (T3, T4) are also suitable head locations for vibration stimulation or head tactile communication. Myles, K., & Kalb, J. T. (2010). Guidelines for head tactile communication (No. ARL-TR-5116). ARMY RESEARCH LAB ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD HUMAN RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE. GUIDELINES FOR HEAD TACTILE DISPLAY 4
  • 5. 4-tactor display design Abdomen-mounted tactile display belt Head-mounted tactile display belt Conveys point-to-point information: Right motor buzzing indicates- Turn Right Left motor buzzing indicates- Turn Left Front motor buzzing indicates- Move forward Back motor buzzing indicates- Move Backward Vibration Motors Velcro 5
  • 6. Feasibility Study 6
  • 7. Keyboard Simulation Band/Belt Arduino Within Subject design with 10 participants where they navigate through a simulation based on feedback provided by the band/belt by pressing arrow keys on the keyboard. Measures- Completion Time, Comfort, User Preference Experiment 1 Schematic of the Experiment 1 7
  • 8. Magnetometer + Bluetooth Band/Belt Arduino Within Subject design with 5 participants where the tactors orient the n in a particular direction form the starting point. The participants had their eyes shut. Measures - Completion Time, Comfort, User Preference Experiment 2 Schematic of the Experiment 2 8
  • 9. Participants asked to orient themselves(with eyes shut) based on feedback from the band. Demo Video: https://vimeo.com/125433621 Magnetometer mounted to sense Current Orientation Experiment 2 9
  • 10. Results 10
  • 11. • There was no difference in understanding the stimulus from either of the bands though head band had a slightly higher rating while using the stimulus in the task (Head: M = 4.2, SD= 0.7; Waist: M=3.8, SD=0.6) • All the participants found Waist belt more comfortable and subtle in response. • 60% participants found Headband to be better for clear feedback whereas 40% of them found it annoying. • Some participants suggested to use pulses rather than continuous buzzes since over a period of time they seemed to get numb to the vibrations Experiment 1 Average Response Time (Waist Belt) Average Response Time (Head Band) 154.21 ms 140ms 11
  • 12. USER PREFERENCE Those who preferred Head: •Preferred wearing Head gear •Deemed performance important than comfort •Indicate the stomach area to be more private for such interactions 12
  • 13. 5 participants took part in the study, all of whom were Male with an average age of 22.6 years Comfort Ratings (Head: M = 4.8, SD= 0.4; Waist: M=4.4, SD=0.489 ) ALL the participants reported that they found the headband better to navigate but found the waistband more comfortable. Other user insights: Some users reported that they felt the feedback felt “natural” and even “reflexive” Experiment 2 5 participants performed the task for 4 different orientations(45, 90, 135, 270) 13 Mean N Std. Deviation Pair 1 HeadTimes WaistTimes 4.8595 7.3970 20 20 1.583 4.198
  • 14. Head vs Waist Plots for Experiment 2 14
  • 15. Conclusion • Waist band was found to be more comfortable than Headband • Head band was found to be more prompt than Waistband • User preference was based on the dimension of: • Comfort • Performance • Suggestion were made to have different vibration pulses rather than a continuous stream. 15

Related Documents