This study investigates the influence of shoe type (sneakers and safety boots), age, and gender on the perception of haptic pulse feedback provided by a prototype accelerator pedal in a running stationary vehicle.
Background:
Haptic feedback can be a less distracting alternative to traditionally visual and auditory in-vehicle feedback. However, to be effective, the device delivering the haptic feedback needs to be in contact with the person. Factors such as shoe type vary naturally over the season and could render feedback that is perceived well in one situation, unnoticeable in another. In this study, we evaluate factors that can influence the subjective perception of haptic feedback in a stationary but running car: shoe type, age, and gender.
Method:
Thirty-six drivers within three age groups (≤39, 40–59, and ≥60) took part. For each haptic feedback, participants rated intensity, urgency, and comfort via a questionnaire.
Results:
The perception of the haptic feedback is significantly influenced by the interaction between the pulse’s duration and force amplitude and the participant’s age and gender but not shoe type.
Conclusion:
The results indicate that it is important to consider different age groups and gender in the evaluation of haptic feedback. Future research might also look into approaches to adapt haptic feedback to the individual driver’s preferences.
Application:
Findings from this study can be applied to the design of an accelerator pedal in a car, for example, for a nonvisual in-vehicle warning, but also to plan user studies with a haptic pedal in general.
AbbinkD.Van der HelmF. (2004). Force perception measurements at the foot. In Proceedings IEEE Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 2525–2529). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
3.
AdellE.VárhelyiA.HjälmdahlM. (2008). Auditory and haptic systems for in-car speed management—A comparative real life study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(6), 445–458. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2008.04.003
4.
BiondiF.RossiR.GastaldiM.MulattiC. (2014). Beeping ADAS: Reflexive effect on driver’s behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 25(2014), 27–33.
5.
BirrellS.YoungM.WeldonA. (2013). Vibrotactile pedals: Provision of haptic feedback to support economical driving. Ergonomics, 56(2), 282–292. doi:10.1080/00140139.2012.760750
6.
BrewsterS.BrownL. (2004). Tactons: Structured tactile messages for non-visual information display. In Proceedings of Australasian User Interface Conference, 2004 (pp. 15–23). Sydney: Australian Computer Society Inc.
7.
BrownS. (2005). Effects of haptic and auditory warnings on driver intersection behavior and perception (Unpublished master’s thesis). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved from http://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/31844
8.
De RosarioH.LouredoM.DíazI.SolerA.GilJ.SolazJ.JornetJ. (2010). Efficacy and feeling of a vibrotactile frontal collision warning implemented in a haptic pedal. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 13(2), 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2009.11.003
9.
EdworthyJ.StantonN. (1995). A user-centered approach to the design and evaluation of auditory warning signals: 1. Methodology. Ergonomics, 38(11), 2262–2280. doi:10.1080/00140139508925267
10.
GeitnerC.BirrellS.SkrypchukL.KrehlC.JenningsP. (2015). Good vibrations—Driving with a haptic pedal. Paper presented at the AutomotiveUI ’15 Conference, Nottingham, UK.
11.
HaleK.StanneyK. (2004). Deriving haptic design guidelines from human physiological psychophysical, and neurological foundations. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 24(2), 33–39. doi:10.1109/MCG.2004.1274059
12.
HalonenP. (1986). Quantitative vibration perception thresholds in healthy subjects of working age. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 54(6), 647–655. doi:10.1007/BF00943355
13.
HennigE.SterzingT. (2009). Sensitivity mapping of the human foot: Thresholds at 30 skin locations. Foot & Ankle International, 30(10), 986–991. doi:10.3113/FAI.2009.0986
14.
HilzM.AxelrodF.HermannK.HaertlU.DuetschM.NeundörferB. (1998). Normative values of vibratory perception in 530 children, juveniles and adults aged 3–79 years. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 159(2), 219–225. doi:10.1016/S0022-510X(98)00177-4
15.
IchinoseA.GomikawaY.SuzukiS. (2013). Driving assistance through pedal reaction force control with consideration of JND. In RO-MAN, 2013 IEEE (pp. 484–489). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
16.
InglisJ.KennedyP.WellsC.ChuaR. (2002). The role of cutaneous receptors in the foot. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 508(2002), 111–117. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0713-0_14
17.
KaaresojaT.LinjamaK. (2005). Perception of short tactile pulses generated by a vibration motor in a mobile phone. In Proceedings of World Haptics (pp. 471–472). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.
18.
KennedyP.InglisJ. (2002). Distribution and behaviour of glabrous cutaneous receptors in the human foot sole. The Journal of Physiology, 538(3), 995–1002. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2001.013087
19.
LeeJ.HoffmanJ.HayesE. (2004). Collision warning design to mitigate driver distraction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 65–72). New York, NY: ACM Press.
20.
MacLeanK.EnriquezM. (2003). Perceptual design of haptic icons. Presented at Eurohaptics Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
21.
MehlerB.ReimerB.CoughlinJ. (2011). Sensitivity of physiological measures for detecting systematic variations in cognitive demand from a working memory task: An on-road study across three age groups. Human Factors, 54, 396–412. doi:10.1177/0018720812442086
22.
NeelyG.BurströmL.JohanssonM. (2001). Subjective responses to hand-arm vibration: Implications for frequency-weighting and gender differences. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Psychophysics (pp. 553–558). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7949/74c0993a9f4e592dba5dd53f8d35eb1d0839.pdf
23.
NormanD. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
24.
PetermeijerS.AbbinkD.MulderM.De WinterJ. (2015). The effect of haptic support systems on driver performances: A literature survey. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 8(4), 467–479. doi:10.1109/TOH.2015.2437871
25.
PerryS. (2006). Evaluation of age-related plantar-surface insensitivity and onset age of advanced insensitivity in older adults using vibratory and touch sensation tests. Neuroscience Letters, 392, 62–67. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.08.060
26.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: Author.
27.
SchleeG. (2010). Quantitative assessment of foot sensitivity: The effects of foot sole skin temperature, blood flow at the foot area and footwear (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technische Universitaet, Chemnitz, Germany.
28.
ShafferS.HarrisonA. (2007). Aging of the somatosensory system: A translational perspective. Physical Therapy, 87(2), 193–207.
29.
TraviesoD.LedermanS. (2007). Assessing subclinical tactual deficits in the hand function of diabetic blind persons at risk for peripheral neuropathy. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(12), 1662–1672. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.09.007
30.
Van ErpJ. (2002). Guidelines for the use of vibro-tactile display in human computer interaction. Presented at Eurohaptics Conference, Edinburgh, UK.
31.
VerrilloR. (1982). Effects of aging on the suprathreshold responses to vibration. Perception & Psychophysics, 32(1), 61–68. doi:10.3758/BF0320486
