This manuscript starts where my Ph.D. manuscript ended, \yearssincephd~years ago.
-The objective of my research was to use haptics to to help visually impaired children at school.
+The objective of my research was to use haptics to help visually impaired children at school.
My main contributions consisted in encoding information with touch, using Brewster's concept of Tactons~\cite{brewster04}.
It was a pleasure and honor to me to have the opportunity to collaborate with his team on some of these projects.
At this time, the way I viewed haptic at this point was a way to send information to users through their sense of touch.
I used them in two educational applications: an electric circuits exploration software~\cite{pietrzak07a,pietrzak09a}, and a geometric shapes exploration software~\cite{pietrzak09a,pietrzak09b}.
Let $n$ be the number of Tactons in the set, the theoretical number of bits each Tacton in this set can transmit is $log_2(n)$.
For example, each Tacton in a set of 8 Tactons can transmit up to $3$ bits.
-I performed user studies to analyze confusions, and deduced the number of bits effectively transmitted to users.
+I performed user studies to analyze confusions and deduced the number of bits effectively transmitted to users.
This was an estimation of the throughput of this communication channel.
-Finally I designed a multimodal API~\cite{pietrzak07b} to use these output modalities along with sound and 3D graphics.
+Finally, I designed a multimodal API~\cite{pietrzak07b} to use these output modalities along with sound and 3D graphics.
-During the committee questions after my defense presentation, Yves Guiard talked during 15 minutes to tell me how he “liked my work but does not agree”.
+During the committee questions after my defense presentation, Yves Guiard talked for 15 minutes to tell me how he “liked my work but does not agree”.
This was the most exciting moment of my defense.
To this day we still talk about that each time we have the chance to meet.
-He point referred to Gibson's work on perception, especially his paper on active touch~\cite{gibson62}.
+His point referred to Gibson's work on perception, especially his paper on active touch~\cite{gibson62}.
In this paper, Gibson describes an experiment in which participants had to recognize the shape of cookie cutters with their sense of touch only.
-There was two conditions: either participants could only feel the cookie cutter pressed on their hand, or they could explore the contours with their fingers.
+There were two conditions: half of the participants could only feel the cookie-cutter pressed on their hand, the other half could explore the contours with their fingers.
It turned out that participants of the first condition recognized $29\%$ of the shapes, and participants of the other condition $95\%$ of the shapes.
-This experiments clearly shows that our exploration actions are as important as our sensations in our understanding of our environment.
-In my work I made a consensual distinction between tactile and force feedback.
-I called tactile feedback sensations coming from the mechanoreceptors in the skin, and force feedback sensations coming from muscles, tendons and joints~\cite{oakley00}.
-Pr. Guiard argued for a different taxonomy in which tactile feedback refers sensations resulting from tangential movements, and force feedback refers to sensations resulting from normal movements.
+This experiment clearly shows that our exploration actions are as important as our sensations in our understanding of our environment.
+In my work, I made a consensual distinction between tactile and force feedback.
+I called tactile feedback sensations coming from the mechanoreceptors in the skin, and force feedback sensations coming from muscles, tendons, and joints~\cite{oakley00}.
+Pr. Guiard argued for a different taxonomy in which tactile feedback refers to sensations resulting from tangential movements, and force feedback refers to sensations resulting from normal movements.
His taxonomy is certainly in line with Gibson's idea that our understanding of our environment depends on our exploratory movements.
However, my understanding is that the actual sensations got lost in the way.
We can however fill the gap with Lederman and Klatzky's work on exploratory movements~\cite{lederman87}.
-Indeed, I discussed the relation between movement and perception to some extend in my Ph.D. manuscript at several occasions, even if I was not aware of Gibson's work yet.
-The first time was when I designed force feedback icons.
+Indeed, I discussed the relation between movement and perception to some extent in my Ph.D. manuscript on several occasions, even if I was not aware of Gibson's work yet.
+The first time was when I designed force-feedback icons.
The first Tacton set I published used active exploration with force feedback~\cite{pietrzak05}.
-Users manipulated a force feedback stylus (Phantom), which tip was constraint on a line.
-These Tactons consisted in bumps that varied in number, direction and amplitude.
+Users manipulated a force feedback stylus (Phantom), which tip was constrained on a line.
+These Tactons consisted of bumps that varied in number, direction, and amplitude.
Later, I created Tactons with passive exploration~\cite{pietrzak05a}.
They also used a force feedback stylus, but this time the tip was stuck and dragged around in different directions, amplitudes, multiple times.
The main difference between these Tactons is the active or passive exploration from users.
-Participants in my user studies perceived both kind of Tactons.
+Participants in my user studies perceived both kinds of Tactons.
The difference was essentially the situations in which they could be used.
Typically, in the electric circuits schematics exploration software I designed~\cite{pietrzak07a,pietrzak09a}, active exploration encoded electrical components.
It enabled users to scan components and deduce their type.
projects / hdr.git / commitdiff