No abstract

<p>Haptic feedback is critical in a broad range of human-machine/computer-interaction applications. However, the high cost and low portability/wearability of haptic devices remain unresolved issues, severely limiting the adoption of this otherwise promising technology. Electrotactile interfaces have the advantage of being more portable and wearable due to their reduced actuators' size, as well as their lower power consumption and manufacturing cost. The applications of electrotactile feedback have been explored in human-computer interaction and human-machine-interaction for facilitating hand-based interactions in applications such as prosthetics, virtual reality, robotic teleoperation, surface haptics, portable devices, and rehabilitation. This paper presents a technological overview of electrotactile feedback, as well a systematic review and meta-analysis of its applications for hand-based interactions. We discuss the different electrotactile systems according to the type of application. We also discuss over a quantitative congregation of the findings, to offer a high-level overview into the state-of-art and suggest future directions. Electrotactile feedback systems showed increased portability/wearability, and they were successful in rendering and/or augmenting most tactile sensations, eliciting perceptual processes, and improving performance in many scenarios. However, knowledge gaps (e.g., embodiment), technical (e.g., recurrent calibration, electrodes' durability) and methodological (e.g., sample size) drawbacks were detected, which should be addressed in future studies.</p>

No abstract

While user's perception and performance are predominantly examined independently in virtual reality, the Action-Specific Perception (ASP) theory postulates that the performance of an individual on a task modulates this individual's spatial and time perception pertinent to the task's components and procedures. This paper examines the association between performance and perception and the potential effects that tactile feedback modalities could generate. This paper reports a user study (N=24), in which participants performed a standardized Fitts's law target acquisition task by using three feedback modalities: visual, visuo-electrotactile, and visuo-vibrotactile. The users completed 3 Target Sizes × 2 Distances × 3 feedback modalities = 18 trials. The size perception, distance perception, and (movement) time perception were assessed at the end of each trial. Performance-wise, the results showed that electrotactile feedback facilitates a significantly better accuracy compared to vibrotactile and visual feedback, while vibrotactile provided the worst accuracy. Electrotactile and visual feedback enabled a comparable reaction time, while the vibrotactile offered a substantially slower reaction time than visual feedback. Although amongst feedback types the pattern of differences in perceptual aspects were comparable to performance differences, none of them was statistically significant. However, performance indeed modulated perception. Significant action-specific effects on spatial and time perception were detected. Changes in accuracy modulate both size perception and time perception, while changes in movement speed modulate distance perception. Also, the index of difficulty was found to modulate all three perceptual aspects. However, individual differences appear to affect the magnitude of action-specific effects. These outcomes highlighted the importance of haptic feedback on performance, and importantly the significance of action-specific effects on spatial and time perception in VR, which should be considered in future VR studies.

This paper presents a wearable electrotactile feedback system to enable precise and accurate contact rendering with virtual objects for mid-air interactions. In particular, we propose the use of electrotactile feedback to render the interpenetration distance between the user's finger and the virtual content is touched. Our approach consists of modulating the perceived intensity (frequency and pulse width modulation) of the electrotactile stimuli according to the registered interpenetration distance. In a user study (N=21), we assessed the performance of four different interpenetration feedback approaches: electrotactile-only, visual-only, electrotactile and visual, and no interpenetration feedback. First, the results showed that contact precision and accuracy were significantly improved when using interpenetration feedback. Second, and more interestingly, there were no significant differences between visual and electrotactile feedback when the calibration was optimized and the user was familiarized with electrotactile feedback. Taken together, these results suggest that electrotactile feedback could be an efficient replacement of visual feedback for accurate and precise contact rendering in virtual reality avoiding the need of active visual focus and the rendering of additional visual artefacts.