- Thank you.
Today I'm going to talk about
new interactive system that they built
interactive 3D manipulation.
First I would like to show an example of
3D Object Manipulation that our proposed system realizes.
Notice to, I'll pick up this picture 3D image,
the object image, in the air.
The user can touch and grab or move it freely.
In our system, there are many small ultrasound sensors along
the block space.
When the user touches the object,
haptic feedback is presented through the finger bar
controlled by a ultrasound sensor to
remote and (mumbles) on the focus.
Ultrasound Haptic Feedback is a
hot technology in media haptics.
I'm showing the video,
by controlling (mumbles) too much,
pressures of the ultrasound waves at the starting point
in the air.
Ultrasound focus reaching a high sonic pressure point
is generated.
When the focus is interrupted by human skin,
haptic stimulation is presented based on
upward stimulation pressure.
Our system not only creates the focus,
but a new self-focus at the high-speed to
provide more information to the users
to help the feedback.
Showing the left image,
our system estimates the
cross-section object of the finger and the object.
By moving the focus around, this cross-section
(mumbles) pressure distribution is generated
on their finger.
This distribution changes according to the
(mumbles) section.
The user can estimate the contact stage
from the shape of the pressure point and of their finger.
Here let's think about previous study
which is on Haptic Feedback.
The left image shows that
system called HaptoMime.
In this system, the user can operate
particles in the air and
haptic feedback is presented at a point where
the finger touches the display.
This system enables manipulate to any
touchable to the object.
On the other hand, HaptoClone realizes
real time interruption reads through the image.
The image is an optical copy of the real objects
it is very natural and clear
but it is not possible to re-create 3D objects.
(mumbles) object and might create them.
Compared these systems the key point of our system is
that the user can interlock to 3 dimensional and
programmable objects.
Furthermore, these previous systems
version Haptic Feedback are generating the
single focal point to contact point.
As I said before,
our system can generate depression distribution
to give more information about our contact state.
So, I will show you our operative system.
(mumbles) cameras,
secure detect hand shaping motions point cloud.
When the point cloud is inside the (mumbles) object,
the hand that you're grabbing,
that's touching the object
and the movement of the object is physically stimulated.
The 3-D image on the autoscopic display changes according
to the result of the simulation.
The point cloud, they also use it to determine where to
generate with the sound focus.
(mumbles) allow the workspace and (mumbles)
having to pay them back at contact location.
I will describe these sub-systems in detail
on the next slide.
The prototype system uses
real sensitive scanner to sense the users hand moving.
I was showing you in the video where
we set four camera to acquire
the sync measure on all sides of the hand.
From all the measures acquired by each camera
first the background is cut-out and then
the programmed image is submitted by
(mumbles) computer.
Then the point cloud is obtained by
projecting each pixel (mumbles) adapts the images.
This point quality is used for (mumbles) simulation
or enter haptic feedback point.
When the point cloud exists inside the object
the system regarded without the hand touching the object.
The force is applied to this object.
In our system, the force applied to object is
intermittent based on
users (mumbles) shaped chord, cut object.
Another thing apparent to raise
into the object for the project,
the God Object is placed at the contact portion.
After force is applied to the God Object portion
it is connected with
a spring and down part to the center
of the point cloud inside the object.
Furthermore by pressing (mumbles) to object for each finger,
our system can stabilize the migration.
When touching with the two fingers,
there's a force that's applied.
When each finger are balanced,
the object can be picked up.
The point quality is easy to determine where to put
the haptic feedback.
As I said before, our system
(mumbles) on focus allows
a cross-section of the finger and the object.
The cross-sectional shape is a metal by
extracting the point user of (mumbles).
In this video, points near the object are red
as present by left point and
blue ellipse represents the estimated cross section.
(mumbles) changes the portion of the example
(mumbles).
The focus moves over several other point of the
ellipse (mumbles).
In the prototype system set up,
the focus moves over ten points something from the ellipse.
In order to know what kind of distribution
is actual in writing with the finger.
Apart from the numerical simulation based on the
binary element method.
The simulation result assured that the distribution
is generated along the cross-section object.
We took that the transition of the pressure distribution
when the position of the object changes.
As the finger touches the surface,
the pressure distribution on the fingers relax.
Even when the finger completely penetrated the surface,
the pressure distribution stayed along it.
So from the pressure parting on the finger
things it can recognize
(mumbles)
relative to their finger.
This may (mumbles) the (mumbles) of the object.
For comparison, make sure the distribution when
only one (mumbles)
is generated at the center of the ellipse.
In this case,
it can mean that the pressure distribution that doesn't
spread as the finger touches the surface.
I recall the two feedback method,
dynamic focus method and static focus method.
Having conducted the user study to find
how affect these methods are in recognizing
the surface.
The angle and position of the surface.
In this experiment participants were asked to estimate
the angle and position of the surface.
Only from the haptic sensation.
By showing the figure we presented
the project two types of surfaces and different position.
The haptic surface could be touched but
not visible.
The visual surface presses play by 3-D display,
but no haptic feedback was presented when touched.
The participant touches the haptic surface and
attempts to position at an angle,
but the visual surface is too much the haptic sensation
by (mumbles) manipulation.
The difference in
position and angle between the two surfaces
I used it to evaluate how accurately the surface
was recognized.
This task was performed 20 times
for each of the two feedback conditions.
The position angle surfaces were
ultimately changed for each task.
This graph shows the real number of the participants.
The angle estimation, there's a significant different
between the two methods.
The angle allowed dynamic focus method is about 90 ways
and so resulting the case.
Change of the pressure distribution
gave more information about the
angle of the surface to the user.
On the other hand, in the position estimation,
no simulation difference between the two methods.
Both estimations were about 4.5 millimeters
so the position of the surface can be estimated
with both of the feedback method.
So then we have to think about
how this surface recognition affects object manipulation,
so we conducted further experiment.
In this experiment the participants
performed the task with grabs and lifting cube.
When the cube was lifted up,
5 centimeters or more for 1.5 seconds,
but that's where is complicated.
We measure the time from the participant to touch the cube
to the completion of the task
and evaluated the operability of the system.
The participants performed this 25 times for each
of the 3 feedback condition.
(mumbles)
We saw haptic feedback.
The position, angle and size of the cube changes
(mumbles) for each task.
Furthermore, in order to evaluate objectivity
and reality of the system.
We ask the participants to answer a questionnaire
for each feedback condition.
Q1 is the question of operability and
Q2 is a question of reality.
The participants answered with number from one to seven.
The lift grabs to the (mumbles)
time table for performing a task.
The value contains 1.5 seconds to the cubes.
So the time it takes to lift the cube is very short.
But there is no (mumbles) reconditions.
It means, only from these information the
user can easily grab and lift the cube.
On the other hand, the question
score showed that the haptic feedback (mumbles)
subject in operability and reality.
(mumbles) dynamic focuses lead to high score.
I think that is quite a distribution when
touching the surfaces.
It has the operability and the reality.
To finalize (mumbles) the object position visually
a difference of haptic feedback (mumbles)
of the subject of operability and reality.
So, we did the same experiment on the condition
where the object can not be seen.
The participant performed the same tasks,
but there was more in front of the (mumbles).
The participants, they do not know the actual location
of the cube.
(mumbles) Haptic feedback is not presented by touching it.
The participants were the same as previous,
we didn't experiment on the feedback condition
because the participants can not grab invisible
cube with the haptic feedback.
The result showed that dynamic focus is
affective in grasping and lifting the cube not visible.
In our system, users can not lift the cube
unless they grab the two places
on the opposite side of the cubes.
It is assumed that the angle recognition
of the surface by dynamic feedback enables
a fast operation.
The question square showed that
even if the object is not visible,
there is a high operability and reality from
haptic sensation.
I would like to
read a summary about work.
Thank you for listening.
(audience applauds)
- [Instructor] Do we have any questions for the speaker?
- [Male Audience Member] I'll start this off,
in this work you give haptic feedback on one finger.
Could this be scaled up to give feedback
against a whole hand
or against multiple finger-tips?
- Yes, our system can present haptic feedback
to a large group of fingers by
clustering the (mumbles) inside the objects and
generate matching focal point.
- [Female Audience Member] I wanted to know if
you considered adding more
visual hints so that people know that there actually
holding the cube
to improve your result?
With haptics, it's the kind of thing you can't change
the stiffness of your (mumbles) system?
My question is how do people actually know
they're holding it tight enough
so they can move it around.
- I'm sorry, I couldn't catch your question.
- [Female Audience Member] So you compared
you're haptic device with a supreme emperor system,
you know?
But basically I'm not convinced you can change the stiffness
of your spring.
So, I was wondering how do people actually
know that they're holding the cube
so they can actually move it.
- The participants can not feel the
power they apply to the object,
but--
- [Female Audience Member] Maybe I can reformulate.
Just a sec.
(laughs)
You're user experience, you're asking people
"Did you feel the cube?"
and "Were you holding the cube."
So I was wondering if you added
visual, I don't know, outlines over cubes
when people were holding it so that
it can improve your results.
(speaker groans)
- I'm sorry.
- [Female Audience Member] It's all right.
It's all right.
(laughter)
- [Instructor] I think we have time for
one more quick question if you can go ahead, please.
- [Male Audience Member] Just a quick question,
thank you very much for the talk.
I'm curious if you have any calibration data
for understanding the latency involved in
static versus dynamic touching in your model?
- I'm sorry, could you--
- [Male Audience Member] The amount of time it takes
for the dynamic sense,
verses the static
- Friction?
- [Male Audience Member] Yeah the haptic that you're
getting back for that
to actually trigger when the hand starts to pinch.
(speaker groans)
- [Male Audience Member] Maybe we can discuss this offstage?