0
Research Papers

An Experimental Study of Haptic Feedback in a Teleoperated Assembly Task

[+] Author and Article Information
Göran A. V. Christiansson

Delft Haptics Laboratory, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlandsgoran.christiansson@skf.com

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 8(4), 041003 (Nov 06, 2008) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2987403 History: Received May 22, 2007; Revised February 14, 2008; Published November 06, 2008

Haptic feedback is known to improve teleoperation task performance for a number of tasks, and one important question is which haptic cues are the most important for each specific task. This research quantifies human performance in an assembly task for two types of haptic cues: low-frequency (LF) force feedback and high-frequency (HF) force feedback. A human subjects study was performed with those two main factors: LF force feedback on/off and HF force (acceleration) feedback on/off. All experiments were performed using a three degree-of-freedom teleoperator where the slave device has a low intrinsic stiffness, while the master device on the other hand is stiff. The results show that the LF haptic feedback reduces impact forces, but does not influence low-frequency contact forces or task completion time. The HF information did not improve task performance, but did reduce the mental load of the teleoperator, but only in combination with the LF feedback.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Subject’s view of the task: The dark part is moved to dock on one of the three pegs of the fixed base and the order of which peg to dock on is prerandomized

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Teleoperator: The 3DOF planar master device (left) is connected via a bilateral controller to the 3DOF compliant slave (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Task completion time for the four experimental conditions. Mean value (standard deviation): None 2.11 (0.83), LF 2.10 (0.89), HF 2.13 (0.87), and HFLF 2.22 (1.07) (in seconds).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Low-frequency contact force for the four experimental conditions. Mean value (standard deviation): None 2.13 (0.65), LF 2.02 (0.69), HF 2.09 (0.71), and HFLF 2.11 (0.70) (in newtons).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Slave acceleration (equivalent to maximum high-frequency force) for the four experimental conditions. None and HF conditions are significantly higher than LF and HFLF conditions. Mean value (standard deviation): None 47.7 (38.4), LF 36.2 (30.9), HF 48.4 (36.8), and HFLF 36.6 (29.5) (in m/s2).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Box plot of the task completion time for all subjects to illustrate the large variation between the subjects

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Speed versus impact force trade-off for the six subjects. The speed is shown as the task completion rate (assemblies per second) and the impulse force as the acceleration.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Subjective workload for the six dimensions of NASA-TLX comparing the four experimental conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of the hand motion for the four conditions. The low-frequency haptic feedback (LF and LFHF conditions) introduces extra dynamics, which influences the human movement.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In