Siemens.com© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved. Haptic information for reliable displays Marc...

siemens.com© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.

Haptic information for reliable displays

Marc Burkhardt, Birgit Milius, Damaris Dose / RHF2015 September 2015

15/09/2015

© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.

Mobility Division

Humans have a multitude of senses – why only use one?

reliable information needed in critical situations to guarantee safety

usually shown as visual information

human has different senses

Is it possible to use other senses and thus increase safety?

tablet pc / smartphone offer • direct interaction• visual, haptic and audible

information

more natural than desktop PCs

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

Idea of haptical information in a reliable display

development of a reliable display on the basis of haptic and audible information

• operator compares visual with haptic and/or audible information

• no complex electronic system needed

• operator detects faults on a display• better interaction than using a

mouse

• kind of visual, haptic and audible information depends on situation

• simple is better

data processingdata processing

signaling system

touchscreen

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

Possible scenario

working areas• maintainer has to check activated

possessions or temporary speed restrictions

• touched tracks on tablet screen give e.g. haptic feedback if possessions or restrictions are set

safety-related auxiliary operator actions• signalman checks e.g. track

occupations• all not occupied tracks give e.g.

haptic feedback

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

Which combination is best?

• differences between various feedback modalities?

• possible problems:• audible: noisy environment

influences audible information• haptic: intensity of haptic feedback• audible+haptic: asynchronicity

studies are useful

• two studies about multisensory signal combinations:• game: “Bees and Flowers”• simulation: “Operator Workstation”

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

„Bees and Flowers“

• task: detection and report of erroneous bee and flower symbols

• symbols needed to be touched

• participants played 30 levels• two test settings:

• test 1: 46 participants, foyer• test 2: 21 participants, office

bee flower

report buttons

Correct Wrong

Bee signal no signal

Flower no signal signal

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

„Bees and Flowers“

• device emits the following signals (depending on the configuration):• vibration• buzzing sound• vibration and buzzing sound• additional symbol (only in office environment)

• two possible failure types• detection failure (failing to detect an erronous symbol)• false alarm (falsely reporting a correct symbol)

• relative frequencies of both failure types were reported

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

„Bees and Flowers“ results

• no significant differences• results had no normal distribution• haptic and combined haptic & acoustic

feedback was slightly superior

• some participants developed a fast pace

• sometimes error was reported after moving on to the next signal

• report of an error had to be immediately. a lot of detection failures

• some participants had problems with• the background noise• intensity of the haptic feedback

haptic acoustic haptic+acoustic0

10

20

30

40

50

38

47 46

foyer

rate

of

erro

neo

us

sig

nal

det

ecti

on

fa

ilu

res

(med

ian

) %

haptic acoustic haptic+acoustic visual0

10

20

30

40

50

25

47

40

33

office enviroment

rate

of

erro

neo

us

sig

nal

det

ecti

on

fa

ilu

res

(med

ian

) %

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

Operator Workstation Simulation

error report button

red signal • task: detection and report of erroneous red signals

• red signals needed to be touched• no feedback from red signal

error report button• three runs with different feedback

modes (acoustic, haptic, haptic + acoustic)

• 12 participants in quiet environment• all three different feedback modes

were tested• each test took 4 minutes• after test: questionnaire recording a

subjective assessment of the different feedback modes

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

Operator Workstation Simulation

• no significant differences• small variations between different

feedback modes (no consistent ranking)

• users preferred haptic and combined feedback modes to the acoustic mode

• some had difficulties selecting the signal symbols (too small display)

• some noted that the sound was very slightly delayed

very poor very good0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

0

8

3

0

4

3

5

00

1

2

3

6

haptic

acoustic

haptic+acoustic

nu

mb

ers

of

sub

ject

s

haptic acoustic haptic+acoustic0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2.8

4.9 4.8

operator workstation

rate

of

erro

neo

us

sig

nal

det

ecti

on

fa

ilu

res

(med

ian

) %

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

Conclusion

• studies have shown that the idea works to use a variation of feedback modes to reveal mistakes on a display

• potential users tended to prefer a haptic or combined haptic and acoustic signal over an acoustic signal alone

• possible sources of error and unintended influencing factors

• other factors not addressed here may also have affected the results

• not ascertained any significant difference in the effectiveness of the various feedback modes

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

Thank you

15/09/2015


Mobility Division

contact

Marc BurkhardtSiemens AG Mobility ManagementBraunschweig Germany

Dr. Birgit MiliusTechnische Universität BraunschweigInstitut für Eisenbahnwesen und VerkehrssicherungBraunschweig Germany

Damaris DoseSiemens AGMobility ManagementBraunschweig Germany

siemens.com/[email protected]

tu-bs.de/[email protected]

siemens.com/[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Siemens.com© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved. Haptic information for reliable displays Marc...

Documents

Transcript of Siemens.com© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved. Haptic information for reliable displays Marc...