siemens.com© siemens ag 2015 – all rights reserved. haptic information for reliable displays marc...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Page 2 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 3 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 4 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 5 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 6 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 7 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 8 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 9 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 10 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 11 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
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 12 Mobility Division
Thank you
15/09/2015
© Siemens AG 2015 – All rights reserved.
Page 13 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]