Evaluating Force-Based Haptics for Immersive Tangible Interactions with Surface Visualizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haptic feedback provides an essential sensory stimulus crucial for interaction and analyzing three-dimensional spatio-temporal phenomena on surface visualizations. Given its ability to provide enhanced spatial perception and scene maneuverability, virtual reality (VR) catalyzes haptic interactions on surface visualizations. Various interaction modes, encompassing both mid-air and on-surface interactions-with or without the application of assisting force stimuli-have been explored using haptic force feedback devices. In this paper, we evaluate the use of on-surface and assisted on-surface haptic modes of interaction compared to a no-haptic interaction mode. A force-based haptic stylus is used for all three modalities; the on-surface mode uses collision based forces, whereas the assisted on-surface mode is accompanied by an additional snapping force. We conducted a within-subjects user study involving fundamental interaction tasks performed on surface visualizations. Keeping a consistent visual design across all three modes, our study incorporates tasks that require the localization of the highest, lowest, and random points on surfaces; and tasks that focus on brushing curves on surfaces with varying complexity and occlusion levels. Our findings show that participants took almost the same time to brush curves using all the interaction modes. They could draw smoother curves using the on-surface interaction modes compared to the no-haptic mode. However, the assisted on-surface mode provided better accuracy than the on-surface mode. The on-surface mode was slower in point localization, but the accuracy depended on the visual cues and occlusions associated with the tasks. Finally, we discuss participant feedback on using haptic force feedback as a tangible input modality and share takeaways to aid the design of haptics-based tangible interactions for surface visualizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".