A 14‐Gb/s dual‐mode receiver with MIPI D‐PHY and C‐PHY interfaces for mobile display drivers

Abstract

This paper presents a 14‐Gb/s dual‐mode receiver with MIPI D‐PHY and C‐PHY interfaces for mobile display drivers. To reduce size overhead from the dual‐mode interfaces, we propose the termination circuit that shares 50‐Ω terminations and common‐mode capacitors while maintaining a perfectly matched load balance. The proposed dual‐mode receiver can support 14‐Gb/s total bandwidth in each interface mode, resulting in broad compatibility with application processors. A mobile display driver using the proposed dual‐mode receiver is fabricated in a 28‐nm high‐voltage CMOS process and verified up to 3.5 Gb/s per lane in the D‐PHY mode and 2.2 Gs/s per trio in the C‐PHY.

Spatiotemporal influences on the recognition of two-dimensional vibrotactile patterns on the abdomen.

“…ERM motors are easily available and affordable (e.g., Choi & Kuchenbecker, 2013; van Erp & Self, 2008), which is a major criterion for most applications of vibrotactile displays (e.g., Jones & Sarter, 2008; van Erp & Self, 2008). They have been used in the most recent studies involving 2D tactile pattern recognition (e.g., Barralon et al, 2009; Jones et al, 2009; Kim et al, 2006; Novich & Eagleman, 2015; Schwalk et al, 2015; Yanagida et al, 2004) and more largely for other applications. The device was connected to a computer unit that was used to trigger the vibrotactile patterns and to record participants’ responses…”

“…While a great number of psychophysical studies have been conducted on the perception of 2D tactile patterns in the 70s and 80s (e.g., Bach-y-Rita et al, 1969; Kirman, 1973; White et al, 1970), the subject then progressively fell out of favor despite some unresolved questions and a recent increase of applied studies considering this form of coding. For example, 2D tactile patterns have lately been investigated for patient monitoring by clinicians (Barralon et al, 2009; Ferris & Sarter, 2011), driving assistance (Kim et al, 2006; Schwalk et al, 2015), military communication (e.g., Chapman et al, 2012; Jones et al, 2009; Riddle & Chapman, 2012), body–machine interfaces (Khasnobish et al, 2015), and the initial objective of sensory substitution for visually or hard of hearing people (e.g., Novich & Eagleman, 2015).…”