Performance Measures for Haptic Interfaces

  • Vincent Hayward
  • Oliver R. Astley

Abstract

A haptic interface is distinct from other display devices because it is bi-directional; it is capable of both reading and writing input to and from a human user. Due to both the direct human interaction and bi-directionality there has been much ambiguity in describing and evaluating these devices, making evaluation and comparison difficult. The goal of this paper is to set out requirements and guidelines for the performance measures of haptic devices and to hopefully lead towards resolving the current equivocal situation. In particular, performance measures are introduced which have so far not been pertinent in traditional robotics; these include, peak force, peak acceleration and frequency dependent measurements. Performance measures often quoted in traditional robotics are also discussed, however, the focus and relevance of these measures are different in haptic devices. Each of the suggested performance measures in this paper is discussed with respect to its importance, its measurabilty and the condition under which it should be measured.

Keywords

Torque Milling Smoke Sine Stein 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    B. D. Adelstein and M. J. Rosen. Design and implementation of a force reflective manipu- landum for manual control research. Proc. of DSC-Vol 42, Advances in Robotics, ASME Winter Annual Meeting., pages 1–12, 1992. Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Berganasco, B. Allota, L. Bisio, L. Ferretti, G. Parini, G. M. Prisco, F. Salsedo, and G. Sartini. An arm exoskeleton system for teleoperation and virtual environments applications. IEEE Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 1449–1454, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. C. Burdea, J. A. Zhuang, E. Rosko, D. Silver, and N. Langrama. A portable dextrous master with force feedback. Presence: Tele-operators and Virtual Environments., 1:18– 28, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Buttolo and B. Hannaford. Advantages of actuation redundancy for the design of haptic-displays. Proc. ASME Fourth Annual Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, November 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. E. Colgate and J. M. Brown. Factors affecting the z-width of a haptic display. International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 3205–3210,1994. San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R.E. Ellis, O.M. Ismaeil, and M.G. Lipsett. Design and evaluation of a high-performance haptic interface. Robotica, To appear, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. R. Flateau, F. J. Greeb, and R. A Booker. Some preliminary correlations between control modes of manipulators systems and their performance indices. Proc. First National Conference, Remotely Manned Systems, Exploration and Operation in Space, 1973. California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    V. Hayward. Toward a seven-axis haptic device. IROS’95, IEEE/RJS Int. Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    V. Hayward, J. Choksi, G. Lanvin, and C. Ramstein. Design and multi-objective optimization of a linkage for a haptic interface. Advances in Robot Kinematics, pages 352– 359, 1994. J. Lenarcic and B. Ravani (Eds. ), Kluver Academic.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    V. Hayward and M. Cruz-Hernandez. Parameter sensitivity analysis for design and control of tendon transmissions. Preprints of the ISER-4, International Symposium on Experimental Robotics, Stanford, CA., 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. W. Hill, P. S. Green, J. F. Jensen, and Y. Gorfu. Telepresence surgery demonstration system. International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 2302–2307, 1994. San Diego, CA,.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. L. Hollis, S. Salcudean, and P.A. Allan. A six degree-of-freedom magnetically levitated variable compliance fine motion wrist: Design, modelling and control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 7(3):320– 332, June 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. Hui, A. Ouellet, A. Wang, P. Kry, S. Williams, G. Vukovich, and W. Perussini. Mechanisms for haptic feedback. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 2138–2143, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    H. Iwata. Artificial reality with force feedback: Development of desktop virtual space with a compact master manipulator. Computer Graphics, 24 (4): 165–170, March 1990.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    H. Kazerooni. The extender technology: An example of human-machine interaction via the transfer of power and information signals. Preprints of the Fourth International Symposium on Experimental Robotics, ISER, June 30-July 2, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D. A. Lawrence and J. D. Chapel. Performance trade-offs for hand controller design. IEEE Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 3211–3216, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    T. H. Massie and J. K. Salisbury. The phantom interface: A device for probing virtual objects. ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for a virtual environment and teleoperator systems, November 1994.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. A. McAffee and P. Fiorini. Hand controller design requirements and performance issues in telerobotics. Proc. Fifth International Conference on Advanced Robotics, pages 192–186, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. A. McAffee and T. Ohm. Teleoperator subsytem/telerobot demonstrator: Force reflecting hand controller equipment manual. JPL Report D5172, JPL, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena7 California, USA, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J. D. B. Paines. Design of a force reflecting hand controller for space telemanipulation studies. 33rd Congress of the International Federation, October 10–17 1987.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    C. Ramstein and V. Hay ward. The pantograph: a large workspace haptic device for a multi-modal human-computer interaction. ACM/SIGCHI 1994 Conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, April 1994.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    S.E. Salcudean and N.M. Wong. Course-fine motion coordination and control of a teleopertion system with magnetically levitated master and wrist. Third international symposium on experimental robotics, 1993. LNCIS 200. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    K. V. Siva, P. J. Fischer, M. H. Brown, and E. Abel. The development of a bilateral input device for use in teleoperation. Remote Handling and robotics department, AEA technology, Harwell laboratory, Oxon, OX11 0RA, U.K.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    L. Stocco and S. E. Salcudean. A coarse- fine aproach to force-reflecting hand controller design. Submitted to: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. Vertut, P. Marchal, G. Debrie, M. Petit, D. Francois, and P. Coiffet. The ma23 bilateral servomanipulator system. Proceedings of the 24th conference on remote systems technology 1976.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Y. Yokokoji and T. Yoshikawa. Design of master arms considering operator dynamics. Proc. 1990 Japan-U.S.A. Symposium on Flexible Automation—A Pacific Rim Conference— Kyoto, Japan., pages 35– 40, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Hayward
    • 1
  • Oliver R. Astley
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Intelligent MachinesMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations