Richard J. Adams and Aaron B. Olowin

Barron Associates Inc., Charlottesville, Virginia

Blake Hannaford

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

O. Scott Sands

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Tactile Data Entry for Extravehicular Activity

NASA/TM—2012-217199

May 2012
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of significant 

scientific and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Richard J. Adams and Aaron B. Olowin

Barron Associates Inc., Charlottesville, Virginia

Blake Hannaford

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

O. Scott Sands

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Tactile Data Entry for Extravehicular Activity

NASA/TM—2012-217199

May 2012

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared for the

World Haptics Conference 2011

sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Istanbul, Turkey, June 21–24, 2011
Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the support of NASA Glenn Research Center. Work on the 

Tactile Data Entry System was performed under contract NNX10CC92P1. 

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identification 

only. Their usage does not constitute an official endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2012-217199 1

Tactile Data Entry for Extravehicular Activity

Richard J. Adams and Aaron B. Olowin

Barron Associates Inc.

Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

Blake Hannaford

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington 98195

O. Scott Sands

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Abstract

In the task-saturated environment of extravehicular activity 

(EVA), an astronaut’s ability to leverage suit-integrated 

information systems is limited by a lack of options for data 

entry. In particular, bulky gloves inhibit the ability to interact 

with standard computing interfaces such as a mouse or 

keyboard. This paper presents the results of a preliminary 

investigation into a system that permits the space suit gloves 

themselves to be used as data entry devices. Hand motion 

tracking is combined with simple finger gesture recognition to 

enable use of a virtual keyboard, while tactile feedback 

provides touch-based context to the graphical user interface 

(GUI) and positive confirmation of keystroke events. In 

human subject trials, conducted with twenty participants using 

a prototype system, participants entered text significantly 

faster with tactile feedback than without (p = 0.02). The 

results support incorporation of vibrotactile information in a 

future system that will enable full touch typing and general 

mouse interactions using instrumented EVA gloves.

1.0 Introduction

The constraints of an EVA suit make conventional modes of 

human-computer interaction difficult. The environment is 

inherently mobile, so desktop standards such as a keyboard, 

mouse, and large liquid crystal displays (LCDs) are 

unavailable. While adaptations of smaller LCDs and 

keyboards used in state-of-the-art smartphones are possible, 

they have not proven to be practical. A small forearmmounted LCD touch screen was previously evaluated in the 

Electronic Cuff Checklist and flown on several space shuttle

missions (Ref. 1). Unfortunately, challenges of glare, small 

display size, user fatigue, and mobility constraints limited its 

effectiveness. Restrictions imposed by the space suit glove 

make interacting with a small keyboard, either real or virtual 

(touch screen), impractical. These considerations motivate 

continuing research into modes of human-computer 

interaction that are better adapted to the constraints and 

opportunities created by the EVA suit.

To provide crewmembers the same advantages enjoyed by an 

average smartphone user, future EVA systems may leverage 

visual, aural, and tactile modes of information exchange.

Humans are visually dominant animals, with the ability to 

process information through the optical channel at an extremely 

high rate. Graphical display is thus an essential element in an 

effective human-computer interaction system. The most likely 

candidate for future EVA systems is the helmet mounted 

display, studied previously by NASA in a number of settings 

including simulated Mars environments (Ref. 2). Related work 

continues today at multiple NASA centers. Closing the loop on 

this visual element requires the ability to point, select, and move 

objects. Humans are already “wired” to perform these 

operations using their hands, making gloves an intuitive bridge 

into the virtual environment of a GUI.

The gloves required for protection from the harsh EVA 

environment pose a significant obstacle to efficient data entry 

for a suited crewmember. Astronauts have consistently 

indicated a need for better dexterity and feedback (Ref. 3).

While NASA has significantly improved glove form, fit, and 

function from the original 1000 series to the more recent Phase 

VI design, all EVA gloves share certain common elements.

These include an inner bladder to maintain a pressurized 

environment, a restraint layer to mitigate mechanical loads, and 

finally a thermal micrometeoroid garment to insulate the 

crewmember from extreme thermal variations and buffer 

against the impact of high-velocity particles (Ref. 4). While 

NASA is striving to make fundamental improvements to future 

EVA systems, these enduring requirements will almost certainly 

drive solutions that challenge conventional modes of humanmachine interaction—most notably by stifling the essential 

element of touch.

Aural presentation, combined with speech recognition, 

provides bilateral information exchange with the inherent 

advantage of heads-up and hands-free operation. NASA has 

tested a spoken dialogue system for human interaction with an 

autonomous agent, making significant strides to overcoming 

the challenges of robustness to noise and context discernment 

(Ref. 5). While these systems promise to be effective in well 

structured tasks, voice/aural computer interaction is ill-suited 
NASA/TM—2012-217199 2

for communication of spatial information. This limitation 

makes cumbersome such common tasks as placement of a 

cursor in a text field or selecting a GUI icon, perhaps 

explaining why voice recognition systems have made little 

headway in supplanting the keyboard and mouse (despite 

being widely available for years on the commercial market).

Voice-enabled systems likely have their place in future EVA 

suits, but will limit human-computer interaction if other data 

entry modalities are not available.

The sense of touch provides a critical link between humans 

and our environment. Introducing tactility into a data entry 

system promises to increase crewmember performance and 

reduce mental workload. Information displays can overly rely 

on other channels of perception (especially visual), taxing 

cognitive resources already heavily burdened by the 

operational environment. The resulting information overload 

can result in poor multi-tasking efficiency, poor task 

performance, and increased frequency of errors (Ref. 6).

Touch is a relatively unused sensory pathway in EVA, 

creating an opportunity to present information without 

cognitive interference. A tactile glove enables the kind of 

heads-up operation touch typists use to efficiently key text. In 

a GUI environment, virtual features can reintroduce physical 

sensations, such as the feel of pressing a button, to increase 

throughput and user satisfaction.

A tactile display can recover the sense of touch normally 

lost behind the layers of a crewmember’s gloves. Simple 

vibrations can provide the illusion of physical contact, 

rendering phenomena such as texture, impact, and slip. Recent 

studies make a compelling case for adding tactile cues to 

mobile devices. In a 2007 investigation, researchers added 

vibrotactile cues to an HP iPAQ smartphone touch screen 

keyboard (Ref. 7). The device displayed simple tactile icons to 

indicate success when a button was pressed correctly or error 

in the case of a double tap or slip. Subjects executing a text 

entry task in both a laboratory environment and on a moving 

train demonstrated higher speeds and reduced errors when 

presented with the tactile feedback. The users also indicated 

the touch system reduced mental demand and annoyance level.

In related work, researchers found vibratory cues were useful 

for tasks such as list selection, scrolling, and navigation on a 

mobile device (Ref. 8).

Several research projects have previously explored use of 

vibrotactile actuation in gloves for mediating interaction with 

virtual or physically removed environments. In (Ref. 9), 

Murray demonstrated the benefits of voice coil-generated 

vibrotactile information in gloves for teleoperation. Romano et 

al. integrated tactile feedback into the interior of a protective 

glove to display information from an externally-mounted slip 

sensor (Ref. 10). Vibrational cues enabled users to detect 

surface interactions normally obscured by the thick glove 

materials. The CyberTouch glove, commercially available 

system from Cyber Glove Systems LLC, integrates 

instrumented data gloves with vibrotactile stimulators on the 

exterior of each finger (Ref. 11). Applications of the system 

have ranged from industrial prototyping to telecontrol of the 

NASA/DARPA Robonaut dexterous humanoid robot 

(Ref. 12). 

This paper describes preliminary experiments employing 

glove integrated vibrotactile display, gesture recognition, and 

motion tracking to permit a space suit glove to be used as a 

data entry device. A prototype system incorporates a plungertype linear electro-magnetic actuator to provide tactile 

feedback, a MEMS accelerometer to permit registration of 

button click events, and simple 2-D IR motion tracking to 

capture hand movements.

2.0 Prototype System 

2.1 Surrogate EVA Glove

Astronauts often don a light moisture-wicking inner glove 

before putting on the space suit glove. The inner-most glove 

layer is a rubber pressure bladder. It is followed by a loadbearing restraint layer that, combined with structural 

reinforcements, maintains a near-constant inner volume. 

Following are numerous micrometeoroid and thermal 

protection layers. The outermost soft goods layer is highly 

resistant to cuts, tears, and abrasion. High wear external 

surfaces are often coated with a layer of room temperature 

vulcanized (RTV) rubber (Ref. 4).

Since integration and testing using an actual space suit 

glove in a pressurized environment was outside of the scope of 

this initial effort, a surrogate was developed to:

1) Simulate the resistance to finger movement and added 

inertia of an EVA glove

2) Replicate the rubber pressure barrier, and inner liner (and 

their dampening effect on vibrotactile sensation)

3) Approximate the impedance loading of the tactile device 

in a restraint layer

4) Approximate glove kinematics for finger motion sensing

Left and right handed gloves of varying sizes are required 

for human subject testing. To create reasonable facsimiles, we 

used three layers of off-the-shelf materials, shown in Figure 1. 

The first is a cotton under garment. The second is a 20 mil 

Nitrile rubber glove. The outer layer is a modified soccer goal 

keeper glove. Right and left handed versions in medium, large, 

and extra large sizes were created to accommodate a wide 

range of subjects.

Figure 1.—Surrogate glove layers.
NASA/TM—2012-217199 3

To permit easy installation of accelerometer and vibrotactile 

devices between the rubber bladder and outer layer, we 

modified the outer glove by opening up the top surface from 

the wrist to the tip of the index finger. Figure 2 shows device 

placement in the surrogate glove. The upper-right image 

highlights accelerometer placement above the finger tip and 

tactile actuator placement below. With the actuator and 

sensors in place, the glove is reclosed using hook and loop 

bands (shown lower-right).

2.2 MEMS Accelerometer “Clicker”

To enable the system to recognize fingertip “button press”

gestures, we combined an Analog Devices ADXL335 MEMS 

accelerometer with custom embedded software and digital 

filtering. With the accelerometer attached to the distal 

phalanx, the user can select on-screen objects by performing a 

natural tapping motion in free space. An ARM microcontroller 

samples the analog acceleration output at 100 Hz and, after 

processing, generates an HID (human interface device) 

compliant mouse click event through a USB connection to the 

host computer. 

Figure 2 shows the placement of the accelerometer above 

the user’s index finger. Only a single sensor is used in the 

prototype, allowing the user to type in a “hunt-and-peck”

fashion. The time history in Figure 3 shows accelerometer 

output during typical use of the system. The green line 

represents the raw sensor data, while the blue line shows the 

result of application of a band pass filter to eliminate gravityinduced bias and reduce the impact of high frequency noise.

Positive values correspond to the component of fingertip 

acceleration along a unit vector pointing from the finger pad 

towards the user’s fingernail. When the filtered value crosses 

the threshold (nominally 0.14 g’s), shown as a dotted line, a 

button click event is generated (highlighted in red).

2.3 Motion Tracking

Motion tracking for the prototype system is provided by a 

CMOS imaging IR sensor (1280 x 480 pixels). The system 

uses an active array of infrared light emitting diodes to

generate backscatter off of a reflective target on the surrogate 

EVA glove. Tracked glove motions are translated at 100 Hz 

into changes in cursor position on the visual display, creating a 

natural computer mouse-like interface.

The existing sensor is equipped with an optical low pass 

filter that rejects wavelengths below 800 nm (and thus the 

entire visible spectrum). Using its built-in IR LED array for 

illumination (at 850 nm), the system is highly effective at 

tracking the passive reflective target in normal indoor lighting 

conditions. In the tracking application, embedded software 

identifies targets in the streaming IR images of appropriate

brightness, size, and aspect ratio. Tracking success is 

improved by software filtering (to reject pixels below a certain 

irradiance threshold and discriminate between tracks based on 

Figure 2.—Device placement in surrogate glove.

Figure 3.—Accelerometer data in virtual keyboard typing.

target speed) and by optical filtering (to reduce incident 

radiation outside of the LED illumination band).

It is worth noting that while this approach works well 

indoors, we are investigating a range of solutions to deal with 

the added complexities of an outdoor EVA environment. In 

particular, high solar spectral irradiance in the near IR 

typically results in saturation of the existing sensor 

configuration when operated outside on a clear day, even in 

indirect sunlight (due to local glints and atmospheric 

scattering). Because this solar “noise” is in-band, additional 

low pass filtering is ineffective. One potential solution is to 

increase signal-to-noise by replacing the reflective target on 

the glove with an active LED. An 850 nm IR LED integrated 

in the back of the glove can provide sufficient in-band 

illumination to “burn through” the ambient IR noise.

Combined with additional in-band optical filtering, we have 

shown this approach to be effective in enabling tracking in 

outdoor environments under full sun.

A second solution, yet to be explored, takes advantage of 

the IR sensor’s fast frame rate (up to 120 Hz) to perform 

coherent background noise subtraction. By synchronizing the 

IR camera with a strobed LED, every other frame could show 

the active target while the odd frames would show only 

ambient. Pixel-wise subtraction of the two should eliminate 

219.5 220 220.5 221 221.5 222 222.5 223

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

time(s)

acceleration (g)

raw data

filtered data

threshhold

button state
NASA/TM—2012-217199 4

the vast majority of ambient noise, enabling lower power 

illumination to achieve the same or better signal-to-noise.

2.4 Vibrotactile Transducer 

Figure 2 shows the placement of the tactile actuator below 

the pad of user’s index finger. The prototype system employs 

a vibrotactile transducer developed by Engineering Acoustics 

Inc. (EAI) of Orlando, Florida. The actuator is a plunger-type 

linear electro-magnetic motor with a small moving contactor 

that oscillates (at frequencies between 30 to 350 Hz) with 

respect to its outer housing. These plunger-type actuators 

feature a very fast rise time (time reach 90 percent of peak 

force output) of ~ 5 ms (Ref. 13).The device is tuned to a 

resonance of approximately 250 Hz, coinciding approximately 

with the frequency at which the Pacinian corpuscle 

mechanoreceptors in human skin have maximum sensitivity. 

A microcontroller board accepts RS-232 commands generated 

by the virtual keyboard application software running on the 

host computer, independently controlling pulse frequency, 

amplitude, and duration.

While a wide range of tactile cues are possible with the EAI 

tactor, only those representing the most salient features of the 

keyboard, button presses and key edge crossings, were 

generated for the test application. The button press cue 

consisted of two 25 ms pulses with a 25 ms inter-pulse delay.

A key edge crossing triggered two 10 ms pulses with a short 

5 ms delay between. Both are rendered using a 250 Hz 

modulation frequency. The amplitude of the button press cue 

is 24 dB greater than the key edge, creating an approximately 

fourfold increase in perceived tactile “loudness.” Additional 

effects (such as variable surface roughness) were investigated, 

but not included due to the potential for generating perceptual 

confusion.

3.0 Human Subject Evaluations

Human subject evaluations were conducted from June 2 

through June 11, 2010, at Barron Associates’ offices in 

Charlottesville, Virginia. In the study, participants wearing a 

surrogate EVA glove were given lines of text and asked to 

enter them as quickly and accurately as possible using the 

prototype system. A small LCD monitor rendered a virtual 

keyboard that the subject used to enter characters through 

point-and-click operations. Performance and workload were 

evaluated both with and without tactile feedback.

3.1 Participants

Twenty volunteers (14 male and 6 female) participated in 

the experiment. The subjects were over the age of 21 and 

without physical impairment that would prevent normal use of 

their dominant hand. The research program was reviewed and 

approved by the NASA Committee for the Protection of 

Human Subjects (CPHS).

Figure 4.—Virtual Keyboard Application.

Figure 5.—Integrated system and test setup.

3.2 Experimental Design and Procedure

To support human subject evaluations of the prototype 

system, we developed a Java-based virtual keyboard 

application that automates human subject data collection and 

generation of text entry performance measures (Figure 4).

During test administration, a pull down menu is used to set the 

subject number (1-20) and condition (“Practice”, “Normal”, or

“Tactile”) before initializing the test. A “START” button then 

appears and control is passed to the subject. When the subject 

clicks the start button, it changes into a countdown timer and 

the first phrase is presented.

The integrated test setup is shown in Figure 5. During test 

execution, the software draws from a randomized set of 500 

phrases, selected to be moderate in length, easy to remember, 

and containing no punctuation or capital letters (Ref. 14).

When time expires for the given test condition, the code 

automatically saves four time-tagged files recording the 

subject’s raw keyboard entries (including backspaces 

represented as an asterisk), the subject’s corrected entries, the 

“target” phrases presented, and the results of text entry 

performance analysis. Example output of the performance 

analysis file is shown below.

-------------------------------------------

Raw User = an airpozz**rt is a very busy place

Corrected User = an airport is a very busy place

Phrase = an airport is a very busy place

MinStringDistance = 0
NASA/TM—2012-217199 5

------------------------------------------------------------

Raw User = people blow their horns a lot

Corrected User = people blow their horns a lot

Phrase = people blow their horn a lot

MinStringDistance = 1

------------------------------------------------------------

..............

(Remaining phrases deleted for brevity)

..............

------------------------------------------------------------

MSD Sum = 1

Total Phase Set Character Count = 472

MSD Per Character = 0.00211864406779661

------------------------------------------------------------

Total Raw Character Count = 517

Total Corrected Character Count = 473

Key Strokes Per Char = 1.0930232558139534

------------------------------------------------------------

Total Corrected Character Count = 473

Minutes Elapsed = 10.0

Characters Per Minute = 47.3

------------------------------------------------------------

Application software recorded subject entries to generate 

the dependent variables CPM (the average number of correct 

characters entered per minute), KSC (average keystrokes per 

character), and MSD (average mean string distance between 

target and entered phrases) using published string processing 

algorithms (Ref. 15). The study had a within subjects design.

Each participant entered text using the proposed data entry 

system under two different conditions.

Condition 1—Normal

Subjects used their gloved hand to direct the on-screen 

cursor with no tactile feedback

Condition 2—Tactile

Subjects used their gloved hand to direct the on-screen 

cursor and received tactile feedback for button presses and 

edge crossings

After providing consent and reviewing an informational 

handout with the principal investigator, subjects donned the 

surrogate space suit glove on their dominant hand. Both right 

and left handed units were available in three different sizes.

The principal investigator then secured the tactor and 

accelerometer in the glove index finger with a Velcro strap.

Upon completing a short familiarization exercise, subjects 

were asked to enter text for 10 minutes in one of the two 

conditions. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to 

perform the task under Condition 1 first. The other half of 

participants performed the sequence in reverse order. At the 

end of each 10 minute session, subjects completed the NASA 

Task Loader Index (TLX) to provide an assessment of user 

workload (Mental Demand, Physical Demand, Temporal 

Demand, Performance, Effort, and Frustration) (Ref. 16). 

3.3 Results and Discussion

A paired samples t-test was used to test the null hypothesis 

that the two conditions have equal effect on the dependent 

variables. The results are shown in Figure 6. Subjects entered 

corrected text (CPM) significantly faster with tactile feedback 

than without (p = 0.02). The results suggest that vibrotactile 

cues aided subjects in effectively using the virtual keyboard.

Neither KPC (p = 0.39) nor MSD (p = 0.20) differed 

significantly between the two cases.

Observed improvements in data entry performance with 

tactile cuing are consistent in magnitude with those recorded 

by Brewster for touch screen applications (Ref. 7). The effect 

can largely be attributed to the increased confidence provided 

by positive confirmation of intended keystrokes as well as

Figure 6.—Results of human subject testing.
NASA/TM—2012-217199 6

alerting to spurious strikes created by unintentional 

movements. Note that while average error rate was a factor of 

four lower in the tactile case, the large between-subjects 

variance prevents claim of a significant effect. To some extent, 

this high variability can be attributed to insufficient user 

training as discussed further below.

Qualitative results from the TLX questionnaire, shown in 

Figure 7, are consistent with measured data. Just as 

participants actually entered more text with tactile cuing, their 

perceived performance was also significantly greater with 

tactile feedback than without (p = 0.01). Although the 

remaining measures all trended in to the advantageous in the 

tactile case, no claim of significant effect can be made for

Mental Demand (p = 0.20), Physical Demand (p = 0.44), 

Temporal Demand (p = 0.37), Effort (p = 0.32), or Frustration 

level (p = 0.16). The observed variances in these data point to 

a need for a larger sample size in future experiments.

The within subjects protocol design (evaluating each subject 

under both conditions) used in this study was motivated by 

anticipated high inter-subject variability in performance and 

expectation of a significant training effect. We randomized 

presentation of the conditions to control for this effect. Half of 

the subjects performed Normal first, the other half Tactile. A 

strong training effect did bear out in test results shown in 

Figure 8, with subjects on average performing significantly 

better in their second trial as measured in CPM (p < 0.01).

Ordering also played an interesting role in subjective 

measures of user workload as captured in the NASA TLX 

questionnaire (Figure 9). Results demonstrated a significant 

reduction in Mental Demand (p < 0.01) and Frustration 

(p = 0.03) for the second versus the first trial. It appears as 

though participants found the gloved data system increasingly 

accessible as they became more familiar with the interface. 

Other TLX measures fell below statistical significance, 

including Physical Demand (p = 0.80), Temporal Demand 

(p = 0.05), Performance (p = 0.13), and Effort (p = 0.37).

Subjective comments on the questionnaire generally 

indicated that the addition of tactile feedback created a more 

natural data entry interface and enhanced ease of use. Some 

comments however highlighted shoulder or arm fatigue due to 

the requirement to support the weight of the gloved hand with 

the forearm in a slightly above-horizontal orientation (see 

Figure 5). In some cases the fatigue level reduced as the user 

found a more comfortable position. In others, the cumulative 

strain made it progressively more difficult to exercise precise 

control. In hindsight, the physical workload could have been 

significantly reduced by permitting a more relaxed forearm 

and shoulder orientation. More importantly, in the targeted 

EVA application, the motion tracking system will be 

configured so that crewmembers will be able to maintain a 

relaxed arm pose while using the gloved data entry interface.

The significance of training effect combined with the

reduction of mental workload brought by experience together 

point to a need for extended familiarization of subjects prior 

to testing. Providing additional training in human subject 

evaluations would likely reduce overall variance in subsequent

Figure 7.—Results from NASA TLX questionnaire.

Figure 8.—Impact of training on human subject performance.
NASA/TM—2012-217199 7

Figure 9.—Impact of training of NASA TLX results.

human subject performance data, increasing the power of the 

test protocol to distinguish between test conditions. The 

statistical benefit of this approach will have to be weighed 

against the increased time required of each subject to realize 

the training, and the potential for user fatigue.

4.0 Conclusions and Future Work

Results of human subject trials using a prototype data entry 

system provide evidence for the benefit of tactile feedback in 

enabling a gloved hand to mimic the functionality of a 

computer mouse as a point-and-click tool. Improvements in 

text entry performance for a phrase entry task are consistent 

with those previously observed with introduction of tactile 

cues to smart phone texting. In future work, we will explore 

multi-point tracking, multi-finger gesture sensing, and multipoint tactile feedback to enable a more general set of 

mouse/keyboard interactions. The evolved prototype will 

integrate the required mechanical elements and electronics 

into functional EVA gloves to enable testing in a pressurized 

environment. Follow-on efforts will also include integration of 

motion tracking in a space suit, addressing sensor placement 

and ensuring functionality under realistic lighting and line-ofsight limitations. Suited testing will permit evaluation of the 

tactile data entry hardware in conjunction with helmetmounted display technology currently in development by other 

researchers under NASA sponsorship.

References

1. Marmolejo, J.A., “An Electronic Cuff Checklist 

Information Display for Extravehicular Activity,” 26th 

International Conference on Environmental Systems, 

Monterey, CA 1996.

2. Hodgson et al., “Requirements and Potential for 

Enhanced EVA Information Interfaces,” 33rd 

International Conference on Environmental Systems 

(ICES), Vancouver, B.C., 2003.

3. Hoffman, S., Advanced EVA Capabilities: A Study for 

NASA’s Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concept 

Program, NASA/TP—2004–212068, 2004.

4. Graziosi, D., Stein, J., Ross, A., and Kosmo, J., “Phase VI 

Advanced EVA Glove Development and Certification for 

the International Space Station,” Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Environmental Systems, 2001.

5. Hieronymus, J. L., “Clarissa Spoken Dialogue System for 

Procedure Reading and Navigation,” IAC-04-T.3.07, 

NASA Ames Research Center, USA, 2004.

6. Wickens, C.D., “Multiple Resources and Mental 

Workload,” Human Factors, vol. 50, No. 3, June 2008. 

7. Brewster, S., Chohan, F., and Brown L., “Tactile 

Feedback for Mobile Interactions,” Proceedings of the 

SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing 

Systems, 2007.

8. Luk, J., Pasquero, J., Little, S., MacLean, K., Levesque, 

V., and Hayward, V., “A Role for Haptics in Mobile 

Interaction: Initial Design Using a Handheld Tactile 

Display Prototype,” Proceedings of the SIGCHI 

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 

2006.

9. Murray, A.M., “Performance Evaluation of a Wearable 

Vibrotactile Glove for Telemanipulation,” Proceedings of 

the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting, 2003, pp. 2102-2102.

10. Romano, J.M., Gray, S.R., Jacobs N.T., Kuchenbecker, 

K.J., “Toward Tactilely Transparent Gloves: Collocated 

Slip Sensing and Vibrotactile Actuation,” Proceedings of 

the Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual 
NASA/TM—2012-217199 8

Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Salt Lake City, 

UT, USA, March 18-20, 2009, pp. 279-284.

11. CyberTouch, Cyber Gloves Systems LLC, 

http://www.cyberglovesystems.com, accessed March 6, 

2011.

12. Diftler, M.A., et al., “Evolution of the NASA/DARPA 

Robonaut Control System,” Proceedings of the IEEE 

International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 

Sep. 2003, pp. 2543-8.

13. Mortimer, B. M., Zets, G. A., and Cholewiak, R. W., 

“Vibrotactile Transduction and Transducers,” The Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 2970-2977. 

14. MacKenzie, I.S. and Soukoreff, R.W., “Phrase Sets for 

Evaluating Text Entry Techniques,” CHI 2003, Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL, 2003. 

15. Soukoreff, R.W. and MacKenzie, I.S., “Metrics for Text 

Entry Research: An Evaluation of MSD and KSPC, and a 

New Unified Error Metric,” CHI 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, 

FL, 2003.

16. Hart, S.G. and Staveland, L.E. “Development of NASATLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and 

Theoretical Research,” In P.A. Hancock & N. Meshkati 

(Eds.), Human Mental Workload Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 1988, pp. 139–183). 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-05-2012 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Tactile Data Entry for Extravehicular Activity 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

NNX10CC92P1 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Adams, Richard, J.; Olowin, Aaron, B.; Hannaford, Blake; Sands, O., Scott 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 903184.04.20.03.02.01 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17884 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2012-217199 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Category: 54 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

In the task-saturated environment of extravehicular activity (EVA), an astronaut’s ability to leverage suit-integrated information systems is 

limited by a lack of options for data entry. In particular, bulky gloves inhibit the ability to interact with standard computing interfaces such 

as a mouse or keyboard. This paper presents the results of a preliminary investigation into a system that permits the space suit gloves 

themselves to be used as data entry devices. Hand motion tracking is combined with simple finger gesture recognition to enable use of a 

virtual keyboard, while tactile feedback provides touch-based context to the graphical user interface (GUI) and positive confirmation of 

keystroke events. In human subject trials, conducted with twenty participants using a prototype system, participants entered text 

significantly faster with tactile feedback than without (p = 0.02). The results support incorporation of vibrotactile information in a future 

system that will enable full touch typing and general mouse interactions using instrumented EVA gloves. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Extravehicular activity; Feedback; Space suits; Gloves 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

16 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18