Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 2041–2062 | Cite as

Haptic interaction with objects in a picture based on pose estimation



In pictures, every object is displayed in 2D space. Seeing the 2D image, people can perceptually reconstruct and understand information regarding the scene. To enable users to haptically interact with an object that appears in the image, the present study proposes a geometry-based haptic rendering method. More specifically, our approach is intended to estimate haptic information from the object’s structure contained in an image while preserving the two-dimensional visual information. Of the many types of objects that can be seen in everyday pictures, this paper mainly deals with polyhedron figures or objects composed of rectangular faces, some of which might be shown in a slanted configuration in the picture. To obtain the geometric layout of the object being viewed from the image plane, we first estimate homographic information that describes a mapping from the object coordinate to the target image coordinate. Then, we transform the surface normals of the object face using the extrinsic part of homography that locates the face of the object we are viewing. Because the transformed normals are utilized for calculating the force in the image space, we call this process normal vector perturbation in the 2D image space. To physically represent the estimated normal vector without distorting the visual information, we employed a lateral haptic rendering scheme in that it fits with our interaction styles on 2D images. The active force value at a given position on the slanted faces is calculated during the interaction phase. To evaluate our approach, we conducted an experiment with different stimulus conditions, in which it was found that participants could reliably estimate the geometric layout that appears in the picture. We conclude with explorations of applications and a discussion of future work.


Haptic interaction Haptic augmentation Object geometry Image understanding Force feedback 



This work was supported by the IT R&D program of MKE/KEIT, [2009-S-035-01, Contact-free Multipoint Realistic Interaction Technology Development].


  1. 1.
    Akamatsu M, Sato S (1994) A multi-modal mouse with tactile and force feedback. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 40(3):443–453. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1020 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bach-y Rita P, Collins C, Saunders F, White B, Scadden L (1969) Vision substitution by tactile image projection. Nature 221:963–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bau O, Poupyrev I, Israr A, Harrison C (2010) Teslatouch: electrovibration for touch surfaces. In: Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, UIST ’10. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 283–292. doi: 10.1145/1866029.1866074
  4. 4.
    Bradski G, Kaehler A (2008) Learning OpenCV: Computer vision with the OpenCV library. O’Reilly Media, IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Britton EG, Lipscomb JS, Pique ME (1978) Making nested rotations convenient for the user. SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 12(3):222–227. doi: 10.1145/965139.807394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carmigniani J, Furht B, Anisetti M, Ceravolo P, Damiani E, Ivkovic M (2011) Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimeda Tools Appl 51(1):341–377. doi: 10.1007/s11042-010-0660-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cha J, Eid M, El Saddik A (2008) Dibhr: depth image-based haptic rendering. Haptics: Perception, Devices and Scenarios, pp 640–650Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cha J, Eid M, Saddik AE (2009) Touchable 3d video system. ACM Trans Multimedia Comput Commun Appl 5(4):29:1–29:25. doi: 10.1145/1596990.1596993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Concolato C, Dufourd J (2002) Comparison of mpeg-4 bifs and some other multimedia description languages. In: Workshop and exhibition on MPEG-4, WEPMGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dementhon DF, Davis LS (1995) Model-based object pose in 25 lines of code. Int J Comput Vis 15(1–2):123–141. doi: 10.1007/BF01450852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritz J, Barner K (1996) Stochastic models for haptic texture. In: Proceedings of SPIEs international symposium on intelligent systems and advanced manufacturing–telemanipulator and telepresence technologies III, pp 34–44Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Han BK, Kim SC, Lim SC, Pyo D, Kwon DS (2012) Physical mobile interaction with kinesthetic feedback. In: Haptics symposium (HAPTICS), 2012 IEEE, pp 571–575. doi: 10.1109/HAPTIC.2012.6183849
  13. 13.
    Hart S, Wickens C (1990) Workload assessment and prediction. Manprint, an approach to systems integration, pp 257–296Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hartley R, Zisserman A (2000) Multiple view geometry in computer vision, vol 2. Cambridge Univ PressGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinckley K, Sinclair M, Hanson E, Szeliski R, Conway M (1999) The videomouse: a camera-based multi-degree-of-freedom input device. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, UIST ’99. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 103–112. doi: 10.1145/320719.322591
  16. 16.
    Ho CH, Basdogan C, Srinivasan MA (1999) Efficient point-based rendering techniques for haptic display of virtual objects. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ 8(5):477–491. doi: 10.1162/105474699566413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ikei Y, Wakamatsu K, Fukuda S (1997) Texture presentation by vibratory tactile display-image based presentation of a tactile texture. In: Virtual reality annual international symposium. IEEE 1997, pp 199–205, 219. doi: 10.1109/VRAIS.1997.583071
  18. 18.
    Israr A, Bau O, Kim SC, Poupyrev I (2012) Tactile feedback on flat surfaces for the visually impaired. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts, CHI EA ’12. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1571–1576. doi: 10.1145/2223656.2223674
  19. 19.
    Jones L (2000) Kinesthetic sensing. Human and Machine HapticsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kato H, Billinghurst M, Poupyrev I, Imamoto K, Tachibana K (2000) Virtual object manipulation on a table-top ar environment. In: Proceedings IEEE and ACM International symposium on augmented reality, (ISAR 2000). IEEE, pp 111–119Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim SC, Han BK, Yang JY, Kwon DS (2010) Interaction with objects inside a media space. In: ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2010 Posters, SA ’10. ACM: New York, NY, USA, pp. 39:1–39:1 doi: 10.1145/1900354.1900397
  22. 22.
    Kim SC, Kyung KU, Kwon DS (2011) Haptic annotation for an interactive image. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on ubiquitous information management and communication, ICUIMC ’11. ACM: New York, NY, USA, pp 51:1–51:10. doi: 10.1145/1968613.1968675
  23. 23.
    Kim Y, Cha J, Ryu J, Oakley I (2010) A tactile glove design and authoring system for immersive multimedia. IEEE MultiMedia 17(3):34 –45. doi: 10.1109/MMUL.2010.5692181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kyung K, Kim S, Kwon D (2007) Texture display mouse: vibrotactile pattern and roughness display. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 12(3):356–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lederman S, Klatzky R (2009) Haptic perception: A tutorial. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 71(7):1439–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lederman, SJ, Klatzky RL (1987) Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychol 19(3):342–368. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90008-9.
  27. 27.
    Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (1999) Sensing and displaying spatially distributed fingertip forces in haptic interfaces for teleoperator and virtual environment systems. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ 8(1):86–103. doi: 10.1162/105474699566062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Minsky M, Lederman S (1996) Simulated haptic textures: roughness. In: Proceedings of the ASME dynamic systems and control division, vol 58, pp 421–426Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Minsky M, Ming Oy, Steele O, Brooks Jr, FP, Behensky M (1990) Feeling and seeing: issues in force display. SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 24(2):235–241 . doi: 10.1145/91394.91451 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morgenbesser H, Srinivasan M (1996) Force shading for haptic shape perception. In: Proceedings of the ASME dynamic systems and control division, vol 58, pp 407–412Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nack F, Lindsay AT (1999) Everything you wanted to know about mpeg-7: part 1. IEEE Multimedia 6(3):65–77. doi: 10.1109/93.790612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oakley I, McGee MR, Brewster S, Gray P (2000) Putting the feel in look and feel. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ’00. ACM: New York, NY, USA, pp 415–422. doi: 10.1145/332040.332467
  33. 33.
    Rekimoto J (1998) Matrix: a realtime object identification and registration method for augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the third asian pacific computer and human interaction, APCHI ’98. IEEE: Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 63–68.
  34. 34.
    Robles-De-La-Torre G, Hayward V (2001) Force can overcome object geometry in the perception of shape through active touch. Nature 412(6845):445–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ruspini DC, Kolarov K, Khatib O (1997) The haptic display of complex graphical environments. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, SIGGRAPH ’97. ACM: Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, pp 345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saga S, Deguchi K (2012) Lateral-force-based 2.5-dimensional tactile display for touch screen. In: Haptics symposium (HAPTICS). IEEE, pp 15–22. doi: 10.1109/HAPTIC.2012.6183764
  37. 37.
    Sherrick C, Cholewiak R (1986) Cutaneous sensitivity. Handbook of perception and human performance 1:1–12Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shimojo M, Shinohara M, Fukui Y (1999) Human shape recognition performance for 3d tactile display. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 29(6):637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Srinivasa S, Ferguson D, Helfrich C, Berenson D, Collet A, Diankov R, Gallagher G, Hollinger G, Kuffner J, Weghe M (2010) Herb: a home exploring robotic butler. Auton Robot 28(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Srinivasan MA, Basdogan C (1997) Haptics in virtual environments: taxonomy, research status, and challenges. Comput Graph 21(4):393–404. doi: 10.1016/S0097-8493(97)00030-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Szeliski R (2010) Computer vision: algorithms and applications. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vasudevan H, Manivannan M (2008) Tangible images: Runtime generation of haptic textures from images. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, HAPTICS ’08. IEEE: Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 357–360. doi: 10.1109/HAPTICS.2008.4479971
  43. 43.
    Wagner D, Schmalstieg D (2007) Artoolkitplus for pose tracking on mobile devices. In: Proceedings of 12th Computer vision winter workshop (CVWW’07), pp 139–146Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Willis KD, Poupyrev I, Hudson SE, Mahler M (2011) Sidebyside: ad-hoc multi-user interaction with handheld projectors. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, UIST ’11. ACM: New York, NY, USA, pp 431–440. doi: 10.1145/2047196.2047254
  45. 45.
    Willis KD, Poupyrev I, Shiratori T (2011) Motionbeam: a metaphor for character interaction with handheld projectors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’11. ACM: New York, NY, USA, pp 1031–1040. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979096
  46. 46.
    Winfield L, Glassmire J, Colgate JE, Peshkin M (2007) T-pad: tactile pattern display through variable friction reduction. In: EuroHaptics conference, 2007 and Symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems. World Haptics 2007. Second joint, pp 421–426. doi: 10.1109/WHC.2007.105
  47. 47.
    Xu C, Israr A, Poupyrev I, Bau O, Harrison C (2011) Tactile display for the visually impaired using teslatouch. In: CHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’11, pp 317–322. ACM, New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1145/1979742.1979705
  48. 48.
    Yano H, Aoki T, Iwata H (2012) Handheld haptic interface with visual display for touching remote objects. In: Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS), 2012 IEEE, pp 349–354. doi: 10.1109/HAPTIC.2012.6183813
  49. 49.
    Yano H, Miyamoto Y, Iwata H (2009) Haptic interface for perceiving remote object using a laser range finder. In: Proceedings of the World Haptics 2009 - third joint EuroHaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, WHC ’09. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 196–201. doi: 10.1109/WHC.2009.4810889
  50. 50.
    Zilles CB, Salisbury JK (1995) A constraint-based god-object method for haptic display. In: Proceedings of the International conference on intelligent robots and systems, IROS ‘95, vol 3. IEEE: Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 146–151. http//

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Telerobotics and Control Laboratory, Department of Mechanical EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyYuseong-guKorea

Personalised recommendations