Interactive form creation: exploring the creation and manipulation of free form through the use of interactive multiple input interface

Most current CAD systems support only the two most common input devices: a mouse and a keyboard that impose a limit to the degree of interaction that a user can have with the system. However, it is not uncommon for users to work together on the same computer during a collaborative task. Beside that, people tend to use both hands to manipulate 3D objects; one hand is used to orient the object while the other hand is used to perform some operation on the object. The same things could be applied to computer modelling in the conceptual phase of the design process. A designer can rotate and position an object with one hand, and manipulate the shape [deform it] with the other hand. Accordingly, the 3D object can be easily and intuitively changed through interactive manipulation of both hands.The research investigates the manipulation and creation of free form geometries through the use of interactive interfaces with multiple input devices. First the creation of the 3D model will be discussed; several different types of models will be illustrated. Furthermore, different tools that allow the user to control the 3D model interactively will be presented. Three experiments were conducted using different interactive interfaces; two bi-manual techniques were compared with the conventional one-handed approach. Finally it will be demonstrated that the use of new and multiple input devices can offer many opportunities for form creation. The problem is that few, if any, systems make it easy for the user or the programmer to use new input devices

Robust eye tracking based on multiple corneal reflections for clinical applications

Postprint (published version

Augmenting Sensorimotor Control Using “Goal-Aware” Vibrotactile Stimulation during Reaching and Manipulation Behaviors

We describe two sets of experiments that examine the ability of vibrotactile encoding of simple position error and combined object states (calculated from an optimal controller) to enhance performance of reaching and manipulation tasks in healthy human adults. The goal of the first experiment (tracking) was to follow a moving target with a cursor on a computer screen. Visual and/or vibrotactile cues were provided in this experiment, and vibrotactile feedback was redundant with visual feedback in that it did not encode any information above and beyond what was already available via vision. After only 10 minutes of practice using vibrotactile feedback to guide performance, subjects tracked the moving target with response latency and movement accuracy values approaching those observed under visually guided reaching. Unlike previous reports on multisensory enhancement, combining vibrotactile and visual feedback of performance errors conferred neither positive nor negative effects on task performance. In the second experiment (balancing), vibrotactile feedback encoded a corrective motor command as a linear combination of object states (derived from a linear-quadratic regulator implementing a trade-off between kinematic and energetic performance) to teach subjects how to balance a simulated inverted pendulum. Here, the tactile feedback signal differed from visual feedback in that it provided information that was not readily available from visual feedback alone. Immediately after applying this novel “goal-aware” vibrotactile feedback, time to failure was improved by a factor of three. Additionally, the effect of vibrotactile training persisted after the feedback was removed. These results suggest that vibrotactile encoding of appropriate combinations of state information may be an effective form of augmented sensory feedback that can be applied, among other purposes, to compensate for lost or compromised proprioception as commonly observed, for example, in stroke survivors

Change blindness: eradication of gestalt strategies

Arrays of eight, texture-defined rectangles were used as stimuli in a one-shot change blindness (CB) task where there was a 50% chance that one rectangle would change orientation between two successive presentations separated by an interval. CB was eliminated by cueing the target rectangle in the first stimulus, reduced by cueing in the interval and unaffected by cueing in the second presentation. This supports the idea that a representation was formed that persisted through the interval before being 'overwritten' by the second presentation (Landman et al, 2003 Vision Research 43149–164]. Another possibility is that participants used some kind of grouping or Gestalt strategy. To test this we changed the spatial position of the rectangles in the second presentation by shifting them along imaginary spokes (by ±1 degree) emanating from the central fixation point. There was no significant difference seen in performance between this and the standard task [F(1,4)=2.565, p=0.185]. This may suggest two things: (i) Gestalt grouping is not used as a strategy in these tasks, and (ii) it gives further weight to the argument that objects may be stored and retrieved from a pre-attentional store during this task