Advertisement

Advanced Haptic Systems for Virtual Reality

  • Antonio Frisoli
  • Massimo Bergamasco
  • Emanuele Ruffaldi

The rendering to the human operator of the sensation of physical interaction with a virtual environment (e.g. forces generated either by the weight or by the collision with simulated objects) or with a remote environment (e.g. in teleoperation systems) can be achieved by utilizing appropriate interfaces capable of generating adequate sensory stimuli. Such interfaces, called Haptic Interfaces (HIs), are force feedback devices that can exert a controlled force on the operator’s limb like if he would be in be touch with a real object. Force feedback is mainly based on the stimulation of human proprioceptive and kinaesthetic sensorial system, providing information respectively on the body posture, movements and applied tensions. The Arm and Hand Exoskeleton [3] represents one of the first attempts to transfer the experience in teleoperation master design to the field of In the first half of the 1990s, the demand of simpler haptic interfaces stimulated the development of new desktop haptic interfaces. In reason of their low cost, today they are with no doubt the most prevalent kind of force feedback interfaces in use.

Keywords

Virtual Reality Grip Force Collision Detection Force Feedback Virtual Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bergamasco M, Avizzano CA Frisoli A R E, SM (2006) Design and validation of a complete haptic system for manipulative tasks. Advanced Robotics, Special Issue on Haptic Display: beyond visual and aural interaction 20, 3, pp 367-389Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbagli F, DeVengenzo R, Salisbury K (2003) Dual-handed virtual grasping. In: 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA Taipei, Taiwan, 2003, vol. 1, pp 1259-1263Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergamasco M (1996) Force replication to the human operator: the development of arm and hand exoskeletons as haptic interfaces. In Robotics Research, The Seventh International Symposium, Giralt G, Hirzinger G, (eds) Springer-Verlag, pp 173-182Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbagli F, Frisoli A, Salisbury K, Bergamasco M Simulating human fingers: a soft finger proxy model and algorithm. vol. 1, pp 9-17Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barbagli F, Frisoli A, Salisbury K, Bergamasco M (2004) Simulating human fingers: a soft finger proxy model and algorithm. In: Proceedings. 12th International Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, pp 9-17Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conti F, Khatib O (2005) Spanning large workspaces using small haptic devices. In: First Joint Eurohaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC’05)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frisoli A, Barbagli F, Ruffaldi E, Salisbury K, Bergamasco M (2007) A limit-curve based soft finger god-object algorithm. In Proceedings. 12th International Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator SystemsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Howe RD, Cutkosky MR (1996) Practical force-motion models for sliding manipulation. International Journal of Robotic Resarch 15, 557-572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayward V, Choksi J, Lanvin G, Ramstein C (1994) Advances in Robot Kinematics. Kluwer Academics, 1994, ch. Design and multi-objective optimization of a linkage for a haptic interface, pp 352-359Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jenmalm P Goodwin AWJR (1998) Control of grasp stability when humans lift objects with different surface curvatures. J. Neurophysiol., 79, 1643-1652Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kinoshita H, Bckstrm L, Flanagan JR, Johansson R S (1997) Tangential torque effects on the control of grip forces when holding objects with a precision grip. J Neurophysiol 78, 1619-1630.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Melder N, Harwin WS (2004) Extending the friction cone algorithm for arbitrary polygon based haptic objects. In: HAPTICS, pp 234-241Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McNeely W, Puterbaugh K, Troy J (1999) Six degree-of-freedom haptic rendering using voxel sampling. Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 401-408Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Otaduy MA, Lin M (2003) Sensation preserving simplifiction for haptic rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics 22, 543-553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robert Howe TD, Dupont P (1999) Twice the fun: Two phantoms as a highperformance telemanipulation system. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual PHANTOM Users Group WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruspini DC, Kolarov K, Khatib O (1997) The haptic display of complex graphical environments. Computer Graphics 31, Annual Conference Series, 345-352Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W McNeely KP, Troy J (1999) Six degree-of-freedom haptic rendering using voxel sampling. In: Proceedings of ACMSIGGRAPH, pp 401-408Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yoshikawa T (1990) Foundations of Robotics - Analysis and Control. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zilles C., Salisbury J.: A constraintbased god-object method for haptic display. In Proc. IEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Human Robot Interaction, and Cooperative Robots (1995), vol. 3, pp 146-151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zilles CB, Salisbury JK (1995) A constraint-based god-object method for haptic display. In: Proc. of IROSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Frisoli
    • 1
  • Massimo Bergamasco
    • 1
  • Emanuele Ruffaldi
    • 1
  1. 1.PERCRO, Scuola Superiore S.AnnaItaly

Personalised recommendations