TouchMover 2.0 3D Touchscreen with Force Feedback and Haptic Texture

Mike Sinclair

Michel Pahud

Hrvoje Benkosinclair@microsoft.com
mpahud@microsoft.com
benko@microsoft.com
Microsoft Research, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052

ABSTRACTThis paper presents the design and development of a novel visiohaptic device that co-locates 3D stereo visualization, direct touch,texture and touch force sensing with a robotically actuated display.
Our actuated immersive 3D display, called TouchMover 2.0, is
capable of providing 1D movement (up to 36cm), haptic screen
force feedback (up to 230N) in a single dimension perpendicular tothe screen plane, and has an additional capability to render haptic
texture cues via vibrotactile actuators attached to the touchscreen.
We describe the details of our design and improvements. We
showcase how TouchMover 2.0 allows the user to: touch and feelthe 3D contour and 2D texture of a topographic map, to interact
with 3D objects by pushing them on the screen with realistic force
feedback and intuitively explore and feel pseudo tissue texture
within volumetric data from medical imagery (e.g., MRI brainscan).
Keywords: 3D touchscreen, haptics, texture, vibrotactile
Index Terms: Human-centered computing - Human computerinteraction (HCI) – Interaction devices – Haptic devices
1 INTRODUCTION
The ability of modern computing devices to render high-fidelity
and highly realistic visual and audio output far exceeds their ability
to provide any meaningful haptic feedback. In fact, the only haptic
feedback on today’s computing devices that is in wide use is thevibrotactile feedback built into mobile phones and gamecontrollers.
TouchMover is an actuated display which is capable ofgenerating large forces and displacements as well as accurately colocating the input and the output of both haptic and visual
rendering. We combine 2D touch sensing, 3D stereoscopic visual
rendering with correctly matched focus and vergence and a 1D
servo actuator within a single unit – a 3D interactive display withtouch force feedback that is robotically actuated in the Z-direction(Figure 1). The user can touch and press on the screen to move it
into a desired location and in turn, the screen can exert forces onto
the finger.
Early in the development of TouchMover [8], it was obvious
to the authors that the higher frequency haptic clues were missing.

IEEE Haptics Symposium 201423-26 February, Houston, Tx, USA
978-1-4799-3130-9/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE

Figure 1: TouchMover 2.0 co-locates immersive 3D stereo
visualization, direct touch and touch force sensing with arobotically actuated display and a vibrotactile screen.

Specifically, the haptic response was limited to a relatively low
frequency 1D actuation of the stereo touch screen. The user test of
TouchMover consisted of requiring people to disambiguate ten
different 3D shapes on our device purely via touch-based haptic
feedback and without any visual feedback. These contributions
demonstrated the potential of TouchMover to deliver high-fidelity
haptic and visual feedback and create novel immersive experiences.
Participants indicated the correct shape 85% of the time. User
feedback however indicated the lack of edge definition or gradienthaptics created problems with this task. Also it was noted that while
the fidelity of the active visual and haptic interactive dimensions of
this device was impressive, the lack of any texture haptics wasapparent.
TouchMover 2.0 adds a Z-axis haptic texture to TouchMover
via sub-audible actuators mounted to the touch screen. In
TouchMover 2.0, the texture vibrotactile actuators respond to the
XY position of the finger on the touchscreen in addition to thecapabilities of the original device.
1.1
Related Work
There are relatively few technical designs that combine direct touch
interaction with 3D stereoscopically rendered scenes and objects.
Hoshino [4] et al. developed a movable screen in response to finger
touch to enhance the actuation of virtual buttons. Their system had
relatively short screen travel distance and no proportional force
sensing.
Valkov et al. [7] built an elaborate projection screen setup tomeasure the disparity between location of a 3D stereo renderedobject and the physical point of touch on the screen, given various
positive and negative rendered parallax differences. They noted1that if there is a parallax disparity, the users tended to touch
between the two eye projections with an offset due to left- or righteye dominance. Schoning et al. [5] described problems withparallax disparity between the direct touch and 3D object positions.
They addressed solutions based on mobile devices. Most of theseapplications and studies discuss and attempt to minimize touchproblems due to the physical disparity between the 3D renderedobject and the direct 2D touch surface position. We designed ourdevice to overcome this problem directly since the touch surface is
automatically moved to the object being touched as the user
naturally approaches that object with their finger. This ensures thatthe finger, the rendering plane (screen) and the virtual object are on
the same correct convergence plane, i.e. without parallax.
Some researchers have been interested in exploring haptics
without a screen. For example, Dostmohamed et al. [13] worked ona system known as “Morpheotron” to create a 3D surface in 2D byusing the contact angle of a small plate under the finger. Theirsystem didn’t have the dimension of height. Later on, Wijntjes etal. [18] extended the “Morpheotron” to include height. Tachi et al.
[14] explored displacement for displaying large shapes but they
didn’t represent the gradient of the shape. On the other hand
Wijntjes et al. [15] researched curvature discrimination
characteristics of human touch without displacement.
Various researchers explored shapes and textures on 2D
displays. Saga et al. [16] developed a system which display shapes,
textures, and visual images simultaneously by employing an
illusional gradient sensation and recorded vibration. Kim et al. [17]also developed illusional-gradient-sensation-based electrostatic
display. Bau et al. [20] used electrovibration to create tactile
sensations. Projected deformable objects has been another field of
exploration for researchers; For instance, Follmer and al. [19]worked on a shape display using an array of dynamic pins, depth
sensor and an overhead projector.

overview of vibrotactile perception, displays, touchscreens andvarious actuators.
The goal for TouchMover was to use a robot-mounted 3D
touchscreen monitor to explore how the kinesthetic haptic sense(i.e., the haptic sense relating to motion rather than tactile touch)can augment touchscreen interactions. To accomplish this we
mounted a multi-touch stereo 3D monitor on a 1D robot. Our design
was guided primarily by enabling the user to keep the screen withinarm’s reach in both extended/retracted arm position and to view it
directly in the middle of the screen for viewing 3D visualizations
head-on. We therefore opted for the standing height vertical screen,rather than having the off-axis perspective typical of horizontal
displays. However, in principle, our design is capable of bothvertical and horizontal operation.
2.1
3D Touch-Sensitive Display
We chose a BenQ XL2420T 120 Hz stereo 3D capable 24” monitor.
We removed the plastic shell for weight reduction and to offer amore rigid mounting surface for other components. To the monitor
frame we mounted four force transducers (Phidgets CZL635, 5 Kg
load cells) on the front four corners. To these transducers, we
mounted a lightweight polycarbonate frame with carbon fiber
tubular stiffeners. The stiffeners were added to support the fragile
thin glass touch overlay as it was designed to be mounted directly
to a rigid LCD monitor. A 3M 98-0003-3775-2, 24" PCT multitouch overlay glass with USB interface PCB was mounted to thisstiffened frame. One advantage of our system over off-the-shelfsolutions is that it allows us to combine touch sensing with a 3D
stereo capable display, a combination not currently available on themarket. Another advantage of this composite structure is that only
the mass of the plastic frame and overlay touch glass were includedin the touch force end effector and did not include the considerable
mass of the LCD monitor, i.e., the force sensors were installed
between the touchscreen overlay and the display itself (Figure 2).
In our case, since the entire touchscreen part is moving, it isimportant to reduce the mass of the end effector since the force
transducers sense not only the finger force, but also the accelerationof this mass as inertial forces. We will discuss this issue further
below.

Figure 2: Simple diagram outlining major components of the
TouchMover 2.0 device.

2 TOUCHMOVER 2.0 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The 1D robot actuator of TouchMover [8] served mainly to apply
the kinesthetic or proprioceptive haptic response that lets the user
perceive the force, position and movement of their body. One
deficiency of this system was the lack of the other important haptic
sense – tactile or cutaneous perception that enables the user toexplore an object’s surface type with skin contact. Also, as the
TouchMover 2.0’s linear actuator operated into the upper
frequency bands of its capability or above eight to ten Hz, the gear
backlash of the rack and pinion system (mainly) became audibleand distracting when exploring objects with these frequencies intheir haptic pass-band. Choi and Kuchenbecker [2] create a good2

Figure 3: The 1D Robot Actuation image of the back side of ourdevice showing the rack and pinion gear and the completely
supported 3D touchscreen up front.

As with TouchMover, we implemented a 1D robot by
combining an encoded linear actuator with two low friction(recirculating ball) linear bearings (Figure 3). The rotational output
of an encoded gear head servo motor is converted to linear motion
with a low-backlash rack and pinion gear. One end of the rack gearwith its parallel linear bearings completely supported the display
system. As a motion controller and driver we incorporated a Galil
DMC-31012 single axis programmable servo controller with anintegral high speed 32-bit processor, 16-bit ADC and 800 wattmotor amplifier. The controller is capable of being programmed ina high-level interpretive language specifically for servo control.
The controller-amplifier communicated with a PC through ahigh speed Ethernet connection using communication interface
provided by Galil [9]. The servo loop operated at 2 KHz within thecontroller and included processing the motor’s encoder input,
calculations for the system’s position, integral and differential
components (PID), servomotor updates, processing external forces
sensed, outputting the vibrotactile signal, communicating with the
PC and processing for the numerous modes of operation. The fullsystem schematic is depicted in Figure 4.
Most of the physical structure for the project was implemented
using 80-20 [10] modular framing. As the robot moved the display
in a horizontally confined direction (the display being oriented
vertically) the whole device was elevated such that the screen was
situated at standard eye level for ease of interaction (screen centerat 160 cm from the floor, our average user eye height). The small
box suspended above the screen is the IRLED transmitter used tosynchronize the stereo glasses (visible in Figure 1). The operable
depth that our screen can traverse is 36cm and was based on anormal interaction distance of a human arm.
Vibrotactile force

Amp

Touch + inertial force
Inertial force

Force
transducerx4Compensation Mass

3D Monitor

2D Touchscreen

Voicecoil
Actuator x2

2x 16 bit
ADC

AMP

16 bitDAC

Motioncontroller

Motor+
Lineargear

GPU
Stereo image

Encoder

2.2
System Performance
To help the reader understand the capabilities of our device we
present the frequency response of both the kinesthetic 1D robot andvibrotactile actuators. We also present the force response analysis
of TouchMover 2.0. Figure 6 shows a Bode plot (frequency
response) of our combined robotic and vibrotactile system. We
used a linear frequency sweep as the input to the motion controller
and recorded the screen’s physical response and recorded the realtime position as shown in Figure 6 (top). At low frequencies, thescreen responds accurately to the commanded input of +/- 5 cm. At
higher frequencies, the system cannot keep up and the amplitude
drops below the commanded +/- 5cm. The half-amplitude drop off
is around 8 Hz which is fairly fast for a system this large andmassive. Figure 6 (bottom) shows the system’s response to thevibrotactile actuators alone. This was accomplished with anormalized swept sinusoidal frequency input to the actuators andmeasuring the screen’s response by affixing a one axis
accelerometer to the middle of the screen.

Ethernet

4

4

Figure 5: Vibrotactile actuator mounted to each side of thetouchscreen.

PC

X/Y touch position (USB)

Figure 4: TouchMover 2.0 system schematic.
.

For the computer, we employed a quad-core PC running
Windows 8 with a GeForce GTX 660 Ti graphics card which gave
us the ability to render video graphics in stereo using Nvidia’s 3D
Vision [9] output with their shutter glasses for stereoscopic 3D. The
computer communicates with the motion controller via high speed
Ethernet.
To the kinesthetic only device, two vibrotactile intertial
actuators, HiWave HIAX32C20-8, 30W Exciter, were added
physically to the backside of the touchscreen overlay (Figure 5) toenable the screen to be physically vibrated along the Z-axis forhigher frequency cutaneous haptics. An available 16 bit analog
output of the Galil controller was amplified by a 50 watt, class-T
audio amplifier, and fed to these tactile transducers in-phase. The
1D robot actuator signal was filtered to limit its output to below 8
Hz to help suppress the audio problem of the gearing. Since the PC
update rate of the Galil controller was limited to around 60 Hz, thetactile transducers had their bandwidth limited to avoid aliasing
artifacts imposed by the slow update of the PC communications.
The upper end of the vibrotactile actuators’ frequency response
helped to convey higher frequency perception such as sharp edgesof objects, even in the absence of real texture.

Figure 6: Bode plots of movement amplitude vs. frequency of the 1D
Robot (top) and vibrotactile actuators (bottom).

3

2.4

Figure 7: Plot of measured force vs. commanded force.

Though the frequency response goes well above 200Hz, thefrequency was band limited to help suppress any audio perceived.
It is difficult to suppress mechanical resonances as this plot
indicates. The hump at 110 Hz was due to mechanical resonance.
Figure 7 shows TouchMover 2.0’s force response. This implies
that the screen’s forcing ability closely corresponds to thecommanded forces. We chose the force and displacement
magnitudes that would be capable of simulating real-worldkinesthetic examples such as moving items with varying
coefficients of friction. Note the small finite force resulting fromzero commanded force. This is the residual idle force. This researchsystem was initially designed to be cable of replicating real-worldforces without causing harm to the user which is the reason for sucha high (capable) force of ~225N. This upper end of the simulation
has not been used.
2.3
Simulating Haptic Sensations
When powered up, the controller causes the screen to slowly extend
to find the Z=0 home switch and zero the encoder value when it
finds it. The screen at this default position is fully extended toward
the user. When the user touches the screen, they can push it into a
desired Z-position with a light pressure (idle force) of theirfingertip. This is the default behavior of our device which we referto as the idle mode.
Since touchscreen interactions require the user’s finger toremain in contact with the surface, the main challenge of the idle
mode is to ensure that the screen remains in contact with thefingertip during interaction regardless of the direction that thefingertip is moving in (i.e., both away and towards the user). To
enable this behavior, we implemented an idle force with which thescreen always pushes against the user. In the idle mode, the screen
will start moving away from the user when the finger force exceeds
the idle force of 0.6 Newtons. With the maintenance of this small
idle force, the screen follows the finger in depth excursions, both
positive and negative, until a haptic force beyond the idle force iscommanded such as when touching and interacting with an object.
In addition to idle, we implemented four command modes:
force, velocity, position, and detent, where additional forces areadded to the idle force depending on the XYZ position of the finger
and the application requirements. For example, by specifying afixed position command to the controller, one can direct the screen
to remain exactly at a desired position, canceling the idle force. The
detent mode adds a brief additional force to the output to create ahaptic signal for the user (see detent description in the “Volumetric
Data Exploration” section below).

4

Separation of Finger Force from the Screen’s
Inertial ForceTouchMover 2.0’s modes of operation require precise knowledgeof the position and the velocity of the device itself and also the force
impacted on it by the user’s fingertip. Knowing this force isnecessary to correctly enable the idle force behavior; however,measurement of the finger force alone is complicated by the
movement of the touchscreen.
In particular, the summed analog output of the touchscreen
mounted force transducers contains the force components due tofinger touch plus inertial forces of the touchscreen during
acceleration. This inertial component caused by the mass of thetouchscreen (M1) must be removed leaving only finger force. Whiletheoretically one should be able to remove the inertial forces on thetransducers by subtracting a correctly phased term
(acceleration*M1), in practice this depends on a very accurate
estimate of the acceleration. In our initial implementation, thisapproach resulted in either an unstable actuation or a very sluggish
response.
We attempted deriving the inertial-only force data with a
MEMS accelerometer but were unable to obtain the correct phaserelationship with the touchscreen force for an unknown reason. A
more successful approach was to add another duplicate set of force
transducers and an inertial mass (M2) to the moving system, isolated
from the touch force (see Figure 2 and Figure 4). This separate
system senses only inertial forces from a compensating mass andnot any force due to touch. This inertial-only force s digitallyconverted, scaled and subtracted from the converted touch-plusinertial-force signal of the touchscreen. This enables us to correctlycompute only the touch force. By measuring two forces (F1 and F2)
our system can correctly isolate the force due to touch pressure(Ftouch):
∗
∗
Thus
–

∗

Where
/
This force separation is one of the contributions of our system.
To facilitate this computation, we implemented two custom
amplifier boards to boost and sum the microvolt signals from thestrain gauge force transducers to a reasonable level for input to the
16-bit analog to digital converter (ADC) on the servo controller(Figure 4).
3 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS
To illustrate the utility and versatility of TouchMover 2.0, we
implemented three different application examples: a 3D terrain map
visualization, a physical simulation of friction, and a volumetricdata exploration.
3.1
3D Terrain Visualization
Several previous research projects explored the use of touchscreens[6] and the space above the touchscreen [3] for creating physicallyrealistic behaviors in a 3D scene. While visually realistic, such
solutions offer no haptic feedback beyond the passive resistance ofthe screen itself. In contrast, our device is capable of producing
human-scale forces against the user’s fingers (ranging from 1.5N to230N) as well as moving the touchscreen in space along the singleaxis.

We employed these capabilities shown in Figure 1 to render
realistic 3D physical simulations with both visual and haptic
feedback. We created a 3D terrain visualization demo to showcase
all of the capabilities of our systems in a single application. By
moving their finger on the screen, the user can feel the contour of
the topographical terrain map (Figure 1). The 1D robotic screen
linear actuators move the screen along the Z-axis to correctly
represent the altitude of the underlying terrain (at the current XY
location of the finger touching the terrain).
The vibrotactile actuators are used to render information about
the terrain type (such as forest, water, rocks or grasslands). This
information is rendered as high-frequency vibrations, simulating
different surface textures. In this manner, the user can feel thedifference between different terrain types even if they happen to beat the same altitude, i.e., it is possible to feel the difference between
the ocean and the coastal land areas even as they both happen to be“at sea level”.
Lastly, we render the topographical terrain map as a 3D
stereoscopic visualization which gives the user wearing shutter
glasses a correct perception of depth. Placing the user’s finger on
the screen allows the user to gently push the screen in space until
they encounter the terrain. As the screen moves, we move thestereoscopic convergence plane with the interaction plane which
ensures that the object the user is touching is always rendered
without any parallax underneath their finger. Our solution
eliminates the disturbing 3D touch issues reported by Valkov et al.
[7] where the users need to compensate for object parallax whentouching stereoscopic objects on a fixed screen. When using
TouchMover 2.0, the person’s fingertip, the depth of the rendering
plane, and the 3D virtual object that the user is “touching” all matchcorrectly in depth. The texture signal is sent only when the user’s
finger is actually in contact with the terrain.
3.2 3D Physical Simulation with Force Feedback
In another demo application, the user is presented with three virtual
3D boxes, each with different virtual weights and respective
friction forces, and the device simulates the appropriate force
feedback when the user tries to push each box. While we previously
presented this demo in [8], we are including here a brief descriptionof it, as it clearly demonstrates the capabilities of TouchMover 2.0
to render static and dynamic friction forces while the display is inmotion.
Placing the user’s finger on the screen allows the user to gently
push the screen in space until they encounter an obstacle (e.g., abox). To simulate physical behaviors we used Nvidia PhysX [12]physics engine and we represent the tip of the user’s finger with aninvisible sphere proxy particle (similar to the solutions in [3,6]. By
applying a simulated force on the proxy particle corresponding to
the actual force of the user’s finger on the touchscreen display, we
can correctly simulate the physical response that the virtual object
should exhibit and also update the device’s force response to theuser accordingly.
Similarly to the 3D terrain visualization, this demo uses
stereoscopic rendering which gives the user correct depth
perception and eliminates the parallax issues at the interaction
plane. Also important was correctly rendering the scene from theobserver’s isometric viewpoint as the screen moved. While headtracking would make this effect even stronger, for simplicity we set
the user’s viewpoint at a fixed distance from the screen (50cm).
While able to generate realistic responses, this application
suffers from a fundamental limitation that only a single touch point
can be handled in most cases. This is because the user interacts
through one firm plane (the touchscreen) and therefore we areunable to exert different forces onto different touch contacts orsense different pressures from different fingers. In practice, thislimits us to effectively using a single finger to interact with a 3D
scene. There were no vibrotactile haptics used in this example.
3.3
Volumetric Data Exploration
In contrast to the above applications which deal with 3D scenes, wenow showcase using display movement and haptics to enhanceinteractions with 2D data. We implemented a volumetric medical
image browser which shows the MRI scanned data of a humanbrain. By gently pushing on the screen the user can sweep thevolume and view different image slices of the brain [7].
When the user is interested in further exploring a particularslice, they can touch an on-screen button with their non-pointing
finger along the left or right side of the screen, and physically lockthe screen position in place. This makes use of the multi-touchcapability of the 2D touch screen. Now they can use their fingertip
to annotate the slice while locking the screen into position with theother finger. To facilitate easier search and retrieval of suchannotated slices, our device implements a haptic detent to mark thatslice (inspired by Berdahl et al. [1]). In particular, whenever theuser is navigating and returns to that slice, the screen braking force
increases, causing it to stop at that slice. To continue navigating,the user must exert a finger touch force slightly higher than the idle
force in order to move the screen past this slice and turn the braking
force off. This detent makes it easier to find such information
without resorting to an on-screen visual solution.
In addition to the proprioceptive response pushing or pullingthe screen to the desired slice, we implemented an image-derived
texture manifested with the vibrotactile actuators. As the user
explores the image with their finger, the grayscale under the finger
is used to drive the vibrotactile actuators. Since this data wasderived from an MRI device and not a scanning durometer, its
feeling to the user does not replicate actually touching equivalenttexture but does haptically communicate sensed boundaries used in
MRI technology.
To help the reader visualize the vibrotactile response the user
feels, we have included an oscilloscope trace in Figure 8. As thisuser moves his finger from the left end of the dotted arrow to theright side, the oscilloscope plots the real-time signal to thevibrotactile actuators. The scope trace is the actual grayscale value
under the user’s finger as it is slid across the screen. Since theinertial actuator’s influence on the screen is only when it moves,
the user feels the time derivative of this trace. While scrubbing the
exploring finger over a tissue boundary such as the skull, the user
feels the abrupt edge very noticeably and, in this case, in the correct
direction.
4 DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK
Our previous study [8] showed that our system was able toeffectively convey the contour of 3D objects, even without any
visual feedback. The haptic texture displayed in TouchMover 2.0
appears promising to improve contour tracing experience. For
example, the 3D terrain visualization example is a step toward
being able to quickly feel an object and its texture and iterate before
it is committed. We also see interesting opportunities in the medical
field with the possibility of being totally immersed into an MRI
scan which could be useful as a teaching tool, but might also help
during a time critical surgery in the future.
Pseudo textures can also be explored. Buttons or extensions ofsame can be enhanced through real or postulated kinesthetic andtactile haptics. Button boundaries, click-dome forces, mechanicalhysteresis behaviors and textures can be explored for better HCI on
touchscreens5

6

Figure 8: Interacting with a MRI scan dataset.

As a next step, we are planning to recreate our previous user
study [8], but with TouchMover 2.0 to see if the addition of haptic
texture channel is helping to better disambiguate the shapes thatwere often confused (i,e, between a wedge and a half-cylinder inthe study) by rendering the edges of the shape with high-frequency
texture. We are also interested in exploring more with the different
types of haptic textures we can render with TouchMover 2.0 andpossible improvement we can make to the hardware for a richer
experience.
A logical extension to our present hardware would be impartsome of the missing degrees of freedom. We plan to add a fingersize block, able to slide over the 2D touch screen, which are held inplace and actuated by three or four thin tendons articulated by servo
motors on the edges of the screen. This block, besides following thefinger in its X, Y and Z, could impart two additional degrees ofmechanical motion in Yaw and Pitch, reflecting the instantaneous
surface normal of the object being touched. With these four newly
added degrees of freedom – forces in X, Y, Yaw and Pitch TouchMover3.0 would be able to kinesthetically impart fivedegrees of force to the finger for a much more realistic andcompelling haptic experience.
5 CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have described the background, theory and design
behind the TouchMover 2.0 project and the addition of vibrotactile
actuators for tactile experience along with convincing applications.
The TouchMover 2.0 platform demonstrates 3D immersive
simulations with both high force kinesthetic and high-frequency
tactile feedback co-located with an immersive stereo touchscreen.
Kinesthetic force feedback combined with tactile or cutaneous
forces enhance the haptic communication effectiveness of thisdevice. The vibrotactile actuators on the screen go beyond many of
the haptics rendered to large and small screens today. TouchMover
2.0’s texture capabilities can be much less subtle than many of theofferings of today that are barely perceptible. We believe
TouchMover 2.0 is a good foundation as a research tool for visiohaptic HCI.

6

REFERENCES

1. Berdahl, E., Smith, J., Weinzierl, S., Niemeyer, G. Force-Sensitive
Detents Improve User Performance for Linear Selection Tasks. IEEE
Transactions on Haptics, 2013.
2. Choi, S., Kuchenbecker, K. Vibrotactile Display: Perception,
Technology, and Applications. Proc. IEEE, Vol. 101, Issue 9. 2013.
3. Hilliges, O., Izadi, S., Wilson, A., Hodges, S., Garcia-Mendoza, A., andButz, A. Interactions in the Air: Adding Further Depth to Interactive
Tabletops. In Proc. ACM UIST ‘09. 2009.
4. Hoshino, T., Minemoto, T., and Tsukada, Y. Display Unit with Touch
Panel. US Patent No. 7312791. Filed Aug. 27, 2003. Issued Dec. 25,
2007.
5. Schöning, J., Steinicke, F., Valkov, D., Krüger, A. and Hinrichs, K. H.
Bimanual interaction with interscopic multi-touch surfaces. In Proc.
INTERACT ’09. 40–53. 2009.
6. Wilson, A., Izadi, S., Hilliges, O., Garcia-Mendoza, A., and Kirk, D.
Bringing Physics to the Surface, In ACM UIST ‘09. 2009
7. Valkov, D., Steinicke, F., Bruder, G., Hinrichs, K. 2D Touching of 3D
Stereoscopic Objects. In Proc. ACM CHI 2011.
8. Sinclair, M., Benko, H. and Pahud, M. TouchMover: Actuated 3D
Touchscreen with Haptic Feedback. In Proc. ACM ITS ‘13. 2013
9. http://www.galilmc.com/
10. http://www.8020.net/
11. http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-main.html
12. http://www.nvidia.com/physx
13. Dostmohamed, H. and Hayward, V. Trajectory of Contact Region On
the Fingerpad Gives the Illusion of Haptic Shape. Experimental Brain
Research. Vol. 164, 387-394, 2005.
14. Susumu Tachi, Taro Maeda, Hiroshi Hoshino et al. : Construction
Experiment of Virtual Haptic Space Approximation Device , IMEKO
World Congress New Measurments-Challenges and Vision,
Tampere,1997, 61-66, 1997.
15. Maarten WA Wijntjes, Akihiro Sato, Vincent Hayward and Astrid ML
Kappers. Local surface orientation dominates haptic curvature
discrimination. Haptics, IEEE Transactions on, IEEE, Vol. 2, No. 2,
94-102, 2009.
16. Satoshi Saga and Ramesh Raskar. Simultaneous geometry and texture
display based on lateral force for touchscreen. In Proc. of IEEE World
Haptics 2013, 437-442, 2013.
17. Seung-Chan Kim, Ali Israr and Ivan Poupyrev. Tactile rendering of
3D features on touch surfaces. In Proceedings of the 26th annual
ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST13), 531-538, 2013.
18. Maarten W. A. Wijntjes, Akihiro Sato, Astrid M. L. Kappers, andVincent Hayward, Haptic Perception of Real and Virtual Curvature,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 5024, 361-366, inSpringer book: Haptics: Perception, Devices and Scenarios. 2008.
19. Follmer S., Leithinger D., Olwal A., Hogge A., and Ishii H. inFORM:
dynamic physical affordances and constraints through shape andobject actuation. In Proc. of ACM UIST’13. 2013.
20. Bau, O., Poupyrev, I., Israr, A., and Harrison, C. TeslaTouch:Electrovibration for Touch Surfaces. In Proc. of ACM UIST’10. 2010.