Mid-Air Haptic Interfaces for Interactive Digital Signage and Kiosks

European Union’s Horizon 202

Push or Pinch? Exploring Slider Control Gestures for Touchless User Interfaces

Touchless gesture interfaces enable user interaction without the need for direct physical contact. Recently there has been increased interest in deploying such interfaces over concerns about touchscreen sterility. Many touchless displays use gestures that mimic pointer-based interactions, with a ‘cursor’ mapped to finger position, that users activate by ‘pushing’ their finger forwards. Mid-air pushing with a virtual cursor is fine for discrete interactions like button activation; however, users have difficulty exerting control over continuous interactions like sliding and scrolling, because it is challenging to keep the hand at a consistent depth when gesturing. We investigate interaction techniques for slider control that use alternative mode switches between (un)pressed states. Our findings show that pinch gestures are preferred by most users and offer a faster alternative for acquiring control of sliders, as pinching has two clearly defined states and avoids the ambiguous use of depth for delineating input states

The impact of interactive screens on store atmosphere: A case study of Leroy Merlin

Nowadays, with the emergence of new technologies, customers have become more demanding about their choices, increasingly valuing experiences rather than the product itself. This new generation is always on the lookout for new trends and some even prefer to shop online, as it is easier and faster process. However, in some types of products they need to physically touch and test in order to consolidate their choices. Thus, retailers must adapt their physical stores to fit them and create a memorable retail customer experience, adapted to all targets, able to interact and emerge in a unique environment that positively impacts them sensorially and that can be converted into customer satisfaction, increasing purchases and, in the best scenario, creating a loyalty relationship with the brand. In addition, Marketers have shown that the new retail trends impact and improve customer journey and the Interactive Screens are an example of one, which may have influence on factors such as customer experience and the possibility of visiting the store again, making a good opportunity for retailers to engage with their customers. For that reason, the present case study is based on the DIY and Home Improvement market in Portugal, which is growing, and the main purpose is to study the brand Leroy Merlin and in which and how its in-store Kiosks impacts its store atmosphere.Atualmente, com o aparecimento de novas tecnologias, os consumidores estão a tornar-se cada vez mais exigentes quanto às suas escolhas, valorizando maioritariamente as experiências, em vez do produto por si só. Esta nova geração está sempre atenta às novas tendências e alguns até preferem comprar online, devido à facilidade e rapidez do processo. No entanto, em alguns tipos de produtos, este tipo de clientes, embora sejam uma geração digital, necessitam de tocar e testar os produtos fisicamente para consolidar as suas escolhas. Assim, os retalhistas devem adaptar as suas lojas físicas, de modo a criar uma experiência memorável aos seus visitantes, adaptada a todos os targets, capaz de interagir e emergi-los num ambiente único, que os impacta sensorialmente de forma positiva e que poderá ser convertido na sua satisfação, no aumento de compras e, no melhor cenário, na criação de uma relação de lealdade com marca. Adicionalmente, os Marketers têm mostrado que as novas tendências do retalho impactam o percurso do cliente em loja e os ecrãs interativos são um exemplo de uma delas, que podem influenciar a experiência em loja do cliente e a possibilidade de voltar a visitá-la, tornando-se uma boa oportunidade para os retalhistas interagirem com seus clientes. Por esse motivo, o presente Caso de Estudo é baseado no mercado da Bricolage em Portugal, que está em crescimento, e o principal objetivo é estudar a marca Leroy Merlin e em como os seus Kiosks - um tipo de ecrã interativo - afetam a sua Atmosfera de Loja

スマートフォンを用いた視覚障碍者向け移動支援システムアーキテクチャに関する研究

学位の種別: 課程博士審査委員会委員 : （主査）東京大学教授 坂村 健, 東京大学教授 越塚 登, 東京大学教授 暦本 純一, 東京大学教授 中尾 彰宏, 東京大学教授 石川 徹University of Tokyo(東京大学

Investigating vigilance for auditory, visual, and haptic interfaces in alarm monitoring

There are many alarms in healthcare systems that are primarily visual and auditory modalities. Alarms can occur thousands of times a day and can be stressful for clinicians. The overabundance of alarms leads to alarm fatigue. Alarm fatigue is a large patient safety issue as alarms may be silenced or not responded to in a timely manner. Introduction of a new information modality, such as a touchless haptic interface, could mitigate the effects of the vigilance decrement and alarm fatigue because of multiple resource theory and the idea that we have limited cognitive resources. The objective of this work is to investigate the use of a touchless haptic interface in an alarm monitoring vigilance task compared to visual and auditory interfaces. Data was collected on the reaction times of stimuli response to understand cognitive load and the number of correct detections, false positives, and false negatives to understand performance. Participants (N=36) completed a vigilance task in one of the three modality groups where they were asked to identify a stimulus over a 40-minute period. Mixed-effects linear regression models were built to analyze the differences between modalities and blocks. The main finding of this work is that visual interfaces perform best for alarm monitoring compared to auditory and haptic alarms; however, it was also shown that haptic interfaces may have a lower cognitive load compared to auditory interfaces. Therefore, haptic interfaces may be a promising avenue for offsetting information in healthcare alarm monitoring applications

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program