Common Experience Sample 1.0: Developing a sample forcomparing the characteristics of haptic displays
Takuya Oka

Kosuke Morimotocs212022@meiji.ac.jp
Meiji University
Nakano, Tokyo, Japanev200525@meiji.ac.jp
Meiji University
Nakano, Tokyo, Japan

Yohei Yanase

Keita Watanabe

yanase@unity3d.com
Unity Technologies Japan
Ginza, Tokyo, Japanwatanabe@fms.meiji.ac.jp
Meiji University
Nakano, Tokyo, Japan

Figure 1: Common Experience Sample 1.0 and two controller displays to be evaluated for comparison.

ABSTRACT
Many haptic displays that provide haptic feedback to users havebeen proposed;however, differences in experimental environments
make comparisons of displays difficult. Therefore, we categorized
the characteristics of feedback based on existing research, and developed a common experience sample that includes virtual objects
necessary for the expression of each characteristic. Additionally, we
will study the methods of evaluating displays using the proposed
sample, and aim at comparative evaluation of multiple displays.

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → HCI design and evaluation
methods.

KEYWORDS
virtual reality, haptic, evaluation, crossmodal, multimodal, sample
ACM Reference Format:
Takuya Oka, Kosuke Morimoto, Yohei Yanase, and Keita Watanabe. 2022.
Common Experience Sample 1.0: Developing a sample for comparing thecharacteristics of haptic displays . In 28th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality
Software and Technology (VRST ’22), November 29-December 1, 2022, Tsukuba,Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
VRST ’22, November 29-December 1, 2022, Tsukuba, Japan© 2022 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-9889-3/22/11.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3562939.3565649

Japan. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3562939.
3565649

1INTRODUCTION

VR requires an immersive experience in a virtual body. In addition
to visual information, there has been active development of haptic display devices for multimodal and crossmodal experiences has[1, 5]. Such haptic displays are often used to evaluate the experienceand the representational performance of devices through interaction in a virtual space. However, currently, the virtual environments
used for evaluation are created by each study, and there is no common de facto standard among studies. Therefore, comparisons ofdisplays and experiences between studies are not possible.
Therefore, in this study, we propose a common experience sample that evaluators can use to compare and evaluate haptic displays[3]. To design our sample, we surveyed existing studies, and classified the characteristics and requirements of the virtual environment
to be used for the evaluation of haptic displays and represent. Basedon this, a prototype of the common experience environment was developed. Furthermore, through experimental use cases, we evaluate
the effectiveness of the proposed sample .

2PROPOSED METHOD

The common experience sample is a virtual experimental environment that enables comparative evaluation between haptic displays,
and was created with the aim of being used experimentally as a defacto standard. It is an open sample that is universally accessible toevaluators, and dedicated applications can be developed based on
the basic interactions. The sample is subject to further updates inVRST ’22, November 29-December 1, 2022, Tsukuba, Japan

Table 1: Correspondence between object characteristics anditems in the common experience sample
characteristic

objecttexturehardnesstemperature
weightshapemotionmaterial board (A)ball, button (B)flame, mist (C)frying pan (D)sword, table tennis racket, hammer (E)hand gun (F)consideration of the validity of the sample. This paper refers to theCommon Experience Sample 1.0 (figure1).
A number of haptic displays have been proposed in studies. A
survey of these studies shows that the required virtual environment can be defined by learning the characteristics of the objects
represented by the haptic displays, and representing these in theenvironment. Based on the research by Lederman et al.[2], we categorized the characteristics of objects represented by haptic displays
into six dimensions: texture, hardness, temperature, weight, shape(total, detailed), and motion. We mapped existing studies to the six
dimensions and selected samples with virtual objects or scenes thatwere frequently used in each dimension. The objects corresponding
to the six dimensions are listed in the table1.
While this sample is intended to be commonly used as a de facto
standard, it can be modified to meet the specific needs of eachresearcher. Therefore, we made possible to adjust parameters thatare in high demand in evaluation experiments. For example, bymaking the parameters related to shape adjustable, it is possibleto easily prepare visual stimuli of various shapes in an experimentthat maps visual shape to haptic shape [4]. Information on adjusted
parameters can be recorded in JSON format and shared with otherresearchers to reproduce the experimental environment.

3CASE STUDY

We compared using the common experience sample of a gun withthe experience with a standard Meta Quest 2 controller and with agun-shaped attachment (figure1). The standard controller expresses
gun recoil by vibrating when shooting, whereas the controller withthe attachment produces feedback via the elasticity of the springwhen the trigger is pulled. In the experiment, participants wereasked to freely interact in a sample environment with a gun and atarget, followed by a haptic display and a questionnaire to evaluate
the experience. The following seven questions were selected for theevaluation of haptic displays, based on the Presence Questionnaire
by Witmer et al. [6].
(1) How natural did your interactions with the environment
seem? (2) How much did your experiences in the virtual environment seem consistent with your real world experiences? (3) How
easy was it to identify objects through physical interaction, liketouching an object, walking over a surface, or bumping into a wall
or object? (4) How quickly did you adjust to the virtual environment
experience? (5) Were there moments during the virtual environment experience when you felt completely focused on the taskOka, et al.

or environment? (6) Was the information provided through different senses in the virtual environment (e.g., vision, hearing, touch)consistent? (7) How much delay did you experience between youractions and expected outcomes? According to the classification ofthe questions, scores were obtained for Involvement from questions(1), (2), and (3); Adaptation/Immersion from questions (4), (5), and(6); and Interface Quality from question (7).

Figure 2: Presence Questionnaire results for each controller
While no significant difference was observed in Involvement,
the gun controller was rated lower in Adaptation/Immersion andInterface Quality, with a particularly large difference in Interface
Quality (figure2). Some respondents indicated problems in pressing
the trigger and erroneous input. Moreover, the results for the thirdquestion were better for the gun controller, which we attribute tothe ease of identifying objects from the shape of the device.

4CONCLUSION

A common experience sample was proposed and prototyped for thepurpose of comparative evaluation of haptic displays. This study
made available an experimental platform that allows sharing ofvisual stimuli among researchers. Case studies were conducted tosimulate usage scenarios and to verify that comparisons between
different types of haptic displays are possible.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotionof Science (JSPS) Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI)
Grant Number JP22K12336.

REFERENCES[1] Inrak Choi, Eyal Ofek, Hrvoje Benko, Mike Sinclair, and Christian Holz. 2018.
CLAW: A Multifunctional Handheld Haptic Controller for Grasping, Touching,and Triggering in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174228[2] Susan J Lederman and Roberta L Klatzky. 1987. Hand movements: A window
into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology 19, 3 (1987), 342–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90008-9[3] Takuya Oka. 2022. Common experience sample. Retrieved August 23, 2022 fromhttps://github.com/open-video-game-library/CoExperienceSamples[4] Jotaro Shigeyama, Takeru Hashimoto, Shigeo Yoshida, Takuji Narumi, Tomohiro
Tanikawa, and Michitaka Hirose. 2019. Transcalibur: A Weight Shifting Virtual
Reality Controller for 2D Shape Rendering Based on Computational Perception
Model. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ’19). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300241[5] Eric Whitmire, Hrvoje Benko, Christian Holz, Eyal Ofek, and Mike Sinclair. 2018.
Haptic Revolver: Touch, Shear, Texture, and Shape Rendering on a Reconfigurable
Virtual Reality Controller. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery,
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173660[6] Bob G. Witmer and Michael J. Singer. 1998. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 7, 3 (jun1998), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686