Haptic Stylus vs. Handheld Controllers: A Comparative Study for Surface Visualization Interactions

TL;DR

This paper addresses the challenge of depth perception in surface visualizations by evaluating a force-based haptic stylus against VR handheld controllers in immersive environments. It employs a between-subjects design with six tasks (three point localization variants and three brushing-curve variants) across 40 participants and procedurally generated surfaces. The results show that haptics can accelerate point localization under occlusion and produce smoother brushing curves, but may slow brushing tasks and cause varying accuracy depending on task cues and visual context; these tradeoffs inform design guidelines for integrating haptic inputs into surface visualization workflows. The work contributes actionable guidelines for when and how to use force-based haptics in surface visualization tasks and discusses limitations and avenues for future research, including exploring different devices and task sets.

Abstract

Surface visualizations are essential in analyzing three-dimensional spatiotemporal phenomena. Given its ability to provide enhanced spatial perception and scene maneuverability, virtual reality (VR) is an essential medium for surface visualization and interaction tasks. Such tasks primarily rely on visual cues that require an unoccluded view of the surface region under consideration. Haptic force feedback is a tangible interaction modality that alleviates the reliance on visual-only cues by allowing a direct physical sensation of the surface. In this paper, we evaluate the use of a force-based haptic stylus compared to handheld VR controllers via a between-subjects user study involving fundamental interaction tasks performed on surface visualizations. Keeping a consistent visual design across both modalities, 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 longer to brush curves using the haptic modality but could draw smoother curves compared to the handheld controllers. In contrast, haptics was faster 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 help outline design strategies for using haptics-based tangible inputs for surface visualization and interaction tasks.

Figures (16)

• Figure 1: An example showing rendering on surface visualization and a VR handheld controller performing interaction with the visualization.
• Figure 2: All of the surface visualization interactions with the proxy for force-based haptic stylus.
• Figure 3: A left-handed participant using the force-based haptic device for interacting with surface visualizations.
• Figure 4: A holistic comparison between Point Localization and Brushing Curves tasks with respect to total time taken (median) for completion. Significant differences are highlighted with a white marker.
• Figure 5: Task-wise comparison between Point Localization and Brushing Curves tasks with respect to median completion time.